Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent on “Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Successive Discipline · Suspension from Duty)” (Unfair Dismissal 310)
- Date2026/03/23 04:12
- Read 196
This case concerns a precedent that concluded with a partial revocation of the first-instance decision on the issue of “excessive disciplinary sanction (successive discipline · suspension from duty).”
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent that ended with a partial revocation of the first-instance decision on the issue of “excessive disciplinary sanction (successive discipline · suspension from duty).”
Adjudicating Body: Central Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae1414 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.09 · Case result: First-instance partially revoked
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the application period for remedy regarding the suspension from duty had lapsed
The employer ordered the employee to be suspended from duty from 17 December 2024 until notification of the disciplinary decision. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Regional Labor Relations Commission on 8 May 2025. It is therefore clear that the application for remedy regarding the suspension from duty was filed after the three‑month exclusion period had lapsed.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission examined both the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal and the preceding suspension from duty. Through the Commission’s reasoning and the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&, the case reconfirms the limits of disciplinary sanctioning. In particular, where multiple disciplinary measures and suspensions from duty have accumulated, it is important to examine how the scope of recognition of disciplinary grounds and the level of sanction are assessed, and on what criteria the Labor Relations Commission determines whether a dismissal is unfair.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employer had previously imposed a three‑month pay reduction and a three‑month suspension from work on the employee in sequence. Thereafter, the employer placed the employee on suspension from duty from 17 December 2024 until notification of the disciplinary decision and then imposed disciplinary dismissal. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming that both the suspension from duty and the disciplinary dismissal were unfair. After the first instance was partially upheld, the case proceeded to reconsideration before the Central Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were:
“(i) Whether the application for remedy regarding the suspension from duty was filed after the three‑month exclusion period under the Labor Relations Commission Act;
(ii) Whether raising grounds that are identical or similar to those of prior discipline constitutes double punishment;
(iii) Whether, in the absence of a disciplinary limitation period in the company’s internal rules, the employee can argue that the employer’s disciplinary authority has lapsed due to expiry of a disciplinary limitation period;
(iv) To what extent, among the seven alleged disciplinary grounds, the grounds can be recognized as legitimate disciplinary grounds; and
(v) Whether, based only on the recognized disciplinary grounds, dismissal as the level of disciplinary sanction is reasonable in light of social norms.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel first noted that the employer had placed the employee on suspension from duty from 17 December 2024, whereas the employee did not file the application for remedy until 8 May 2025. It therefore held that the application for remedy concerning the suspension from duty clearly exceeded the three‑month exclusion period under the Labor Relations Commission Act.
The panel further held that the disciplinary grounds in this case and those for the prior three‑month suspension from work were based on different specific factual circumstances and thus did not constitute double punishment. It also found that, because the company’s internal rules contained no provision on a disciplinary limitation period, there was no room to argue that the employer’s disciplinary authority had lapsed due to expiry of such a period.
Among the seven disciplinary grounds, the panel determined that grounds 2, 6, and 7 could not be regarded as legitimate disciplinary grounds, for reasons including the authenticity of materials submitted by members, overlapping management responsibilities, the passage of more than eight years, and the employer’s failure to meet its burden of proof.
The panel took into account that the employer had already imposed on the employee a three‑month pay reduction, a three‑month suspension from work, and approximately two months of suspension from duty; that a substantial number of the disciplinary grounds (grounds 2, 3, 6, and 7) were not recognized as legitimate; and that, under the general legal principle that disciplinary dismissal requires a serious cause such that continuation of the employment relationship is impossible under social norms and that the level of sanction must be proportionate and equitable.
The panel held that, in this case, the dismissal could not be regarded as based on remaining grounds serious enough to justify dismissal, and that, considering the repeated disciplinary measures already imposed, the level of sanction was excessive and therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee considers a personnel measure such as suspension from duty or suspension from work itself to be unfair, the employee must file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission within three months from the date of notification of the measure in order to avoid issues of lapse of the exclusion period. In addition, to argue effectively in unfair dismissal proceedings, the employee should整理 in a comprehensive manner whether the alleged disciplinary grounds arose long ago, whether the employer can actually prove the facts it asserts, and whether successive disciplinary measures have resulted in an excessively harsh overall level of sanction.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
When setting out disciplinary grounds, the company should clearly distinguish the factual circumstances underlying each ground and ensure that the same or similar facts are not disciplined repeatedly in overlap with prior sanctions. It is also important to specify in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the disciplinary limitation period, the duration of suspension from duty or removal from position, and the conditions for subsequent dismissal ex officio. By establishing internal standards for the level of disciplinary sanctions and ensuring proportionality and fairness among pay reduction, suspension from work, suspension from duty, and dismissal, the company can reduce the risk that its exercise of disciplinary authority will be viewed as an abuse by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the application period for remedy regarding the suspension from duty had lapsed
The employer ordered the employee to be suspended from duty from 17 December 2024 until notification of the disciplinary decision, whereas the employee filed an application for remedy with the first‑instance Regional Labor Relations Commission on 8 May 2025. It is therefore clear that the application for remedy regarding the suspension from duty was filed after the three‑month exclusion period had lapsed.
B. Whether the case constitutes double punishment and whether any disciplinary limitation period had lapsed
With respect to the issues of double punishment and disciplinary limitation period, the disciplinary grounds in this case and those for the non‑party three‑month suspension from work are based on different specific factual circumstances, and thus do not constitute double punishment. In addition, because the company’s internal rules contain no provision on a disciplinary limitation period, there is no room to argue that the employer’s disciplinary authority has lapsed due to expiry of such a period.
C. Legitimacy of the Disciplinary Grounds
Among the seven disciplinary grounds against the employee, the first‑instance Regional Labor Relations Commission did not recognize only ground 3 as a legitimate disciplinary ground. However:
(i) With respect to ground 2, it is difficult to attribute fault solely to the employee, given that the employee could hardly deny the authenticity of the materials submitted by a corporate member;
(ii) Ground 6 concerns holding the employee responsible for management failure in not obtaining a certificate of employment, but ground 5 already includes management responsibility relating to a lost‑item notice in a daily newspaper, so it is not appropriate to treat ground 6 as a separate disciplinary ground; and
(iii) As for ground 7, two instances in which the employee is confirmed to have waived amendment fees occurred more than eight years ago, and for the remaining instances the employer has failed to sufficiently prove specific non‑collection. Therefore, ground 7 cannot be regarded as a legitimate disciplinary ground.
D. Appropriateness of the Level of Disciplinary Sanction
Given that grounds 2, 3, 6, and 7 are not recognized as legitimate disciplinary grounds, and that, although the grounds differ, the employer had already imposed on the employee a three‑month pay reduction on 5 September 2023 (non‑party case), a three‑month suspension from work on 21 March 2024 (non‑party case), and a suspension from duty of approximately two months on 15 December 2024…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the application period for remedy regarding the suspension from duty had lapsed
The employer ordered the employee to be suspended from duty from 17 December 2024 until notification of the disciplinary decision, whereas the employee filed an application for remedy with the first‑instance Regional Labor Relations Commission on 8 May 2025. It is therefore clear that the application for remedy regarding the suspension from duty was filed after the three‑month exclusion period had lapsed.
B. Whether the case constitutes double punishment and whether any disciplinary limitation period had lapsed
With respect to the issues of double punishment and disciplinary limitation period, the disciplinary grounds in this case and those for the non‑party three‑month suspension from work are based on different specific factual circumstances, and thus do not constitute double punishment. In addition, because the company’s internal rules contain no provision on a disciplinary limitation period, there is no room to argue that the employer’s disciplinary authority has lapsed due to expiry of such a period.
C. Legitimacy of the Disciplinary Grounds
Among the seven disciplinary grounds against the employee, the first‑instance Regional Labor Relations Commission did not recognize only ground 3 as a legitimate disciplinary ground. However:
(i) With respect to ground 2, it is difficult to attribute fault solely to the employee, given that the employee could hardly deny the authenticity of the materials submitted by a corporate member;
(ii) Ground 6 concerns holding the employee responsible for management failure in not obtaining a certificate of employment, but ground 5 already includes management responsibility relating to a lost‑item notice in a daily newspaper, so it is not appropriate to treat ground 6 as a separate disciplinary ground; and
(iii) As for ground 7, two instances in which the employee is confirmed to have waived amendment fees occurred more than eight years ago, and for the remaining instances the employer has failed to sufficiently prove specific non‑collection. Therefore, ground 7 cannot be regarded as a legitimate disciplinary ground.
D. Appropriateness of the Level of Disciplinary Sanction
Given that grounds 2, 3, 6, and 7 are not recognized as legitimate disciplinary grounds, and that, although the grounds differ, the employer had already imposed on the employee a three‑month pay reduction on 5 September 2023 (non‑party case), a three‑month suspension from work on 21 March 2024 (non‑party case), and a suspension from duty of approximately two months on 15 December 2024…
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Employee Status · Application of Retirement Age (Employees Continuing after Retirement Age)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First‑instance upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary sanction (successive discipline · suspension from duty), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non‑compliance with work orders, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong‑dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Justifiability of Transfer (Failure to Submit Graduation Certificate)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to excessive disciplinary sanction (successive discipline · suspension from duty) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Related to Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Successive Discipline · Suspension from Duty).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent that ended with a partial revocation of the first-instance decision on the issue of “excessive disciplinary sanction (successive discipline · suspension from duty).”
Adjudicating Body: Central Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae1414 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.09 · Case result: First-instance partially revoked
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the application period for remedy regarding the suspension from duty had lapsed
The employer ordered the employee to be suspended from duty from 17 December 2024 until notification of the disciplinary decision. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Regional Labor Relations Commission on 8 May 2025. It is therefore clear that the application for remedy regarding the suspension from duty was filed after the three‑month exclusion period had lapsed.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission examined both the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal and the preceding suspension from duty. Through the Commission’s reasoning and the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&, the case reconfirms the limits of disciplinary sanctioning. In particular, where multiple disciplinary measures and suspensions from duty have accumulated, it is important to examine how the scope of recognition of disciplinary grounds and the level of sanction are assessed, and on what criteria the Labor Relations Commission determines whether a dismissal is unfair.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employer had previously imposed a three‑month pay reduction and a three‑month suspension from work on the employee in sequence. Thereafter, the employer placed the employee on suspension from duty from 17 December 2024 until notification of the disciplinary decision and then imposed disciplinary dismissal. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming that both the suspension from duty and the disciplinary dismissal were unfair. After the first instance was partially upheld, the case proceeded to reconsideration before the Central Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were:
“(i) Whether the application for remedy regarding the suspension from duty was filed after the three‑month exclusion period under the Labor Relations Commission Act;
(ii) Whether raising grounds that are identical or similar to those of prior discipline constitutes double punishment;
(iii) Whether, in the absence of a disciplinary limitation period in the company’s internal rules, the employee can argue that the employer’s disciplinary authority has lapsed due to expiry of a disciplinary limitation period;
(iv) To what extent, among the seven alleged disciplinary grounds, the grounds can be recognized as legitimate disciplinary grounds; and
(v) Whether, based only on the recognized disciplinary grounds, dismissal as the level of disciplinary sanction is reasonable in light of social norms.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel first noted that the employer had placed the employee on suspension from duty from 17 December 2024, whereas the employee did not file the application for remedy until 8 May 2025. It therefore held that the application for remedy concerning the suspension from duty clearly exceeded the three‑month exclusion period under the Labor Relations Commission Act.
The panel further held that the disciplinary grounds in this case and those for the prior three‑month suspension from work were based on different specific factual circumstances and thus did not constitute double punishment. It also found that, because the company’s internal rules contained no provision on a disciplinary limitation period, there was no room to argue that the employer’s disciplinary authority had lapsed due to expiry of such a period.
Among the seven disciplinary grounds, the panel determined that grounds 2, 6, and 7 could not be regarded as legitimate disciplinary grounds, for reasons including the authenticity of materials submitted by members, overlapping management responsibilities, the passage of more than eight years, and the employer’s failure to meet its burden of proof.
The panel took into account that the employer had already imposed on the employee a three‑month pay reduction, a three‑month suspension from work, and approximately two months of suspension from duty; that a substantial number of the disciplinary grounds (grounds 2, 3, 6, and 7) were not recognized as legitimate; and that, under the general legal principle that disciplinary dismissal requires a serious cause such that continuation of the employment relationship is impossible under social norms and that the level of sanction must be proportionate and equitable.
The panel held that, in this case, the dismissal could not be regarded as based on remaining grounds serious enough to justify dismissal, and that, considering the repeated disciplinary measures already imposed, the level of sanction was excessive and therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee considers a personnel measure such as suspension from duty or suspension from work itself to be unfair, the employee must file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission within three months from the date of notification of the measure in order to avoid issues of lapse of the exclusion period. In addition, to argue effectively in unfair dismissal proceedings, the employee should整理 in a comprehensive manner whether the alleged disciplinary grounds arose long ago, whether the employer can actually prove the facts it asserts, and whether successive disciplinary measures have resulted in an excessively harsh overall level of sanction.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
When setting out disciplinary grounds, the company should clearly distinguish the factual circumstances underlying each ground and ensure that the same or similar facts are not disciplined repeatedly in overlap with prior sanctions. It is also important to specify in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the disciplinary limitation period, the duration of suspension from duty or removal from position, and the conditions for subsequent dismissal ex officio. By establishing internal standards for the level of disciplinary sanctions and ensuring proportionality and fairness among pay reduction, suspension from work, suspension from duty, and dismissal, the company can reduce the risk that its exercise of disciplinary authority will be viewed as an abuse by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the application period for remedy regarding the suspension from duty had lapsed
The employer ordered the employee to be suspended from duty from 17 December 2024 until notification of the disciplinary decision, whereas the employee filed an application for remedy with the first‑instance Regional Labor Relations Commission on 8 May 2025. It is therefore clear that the application for remedy regarding the suspension from duty was filed after the three‑month exclusion period had lapsed.
B. Whether the case constitutes double punishment and whether any disciplinary limitation period had lapsed
With respect to the issues of double punishment and disciplinary limitation period, the disciplinary grounds in this case and those for the non‑party three‑month suspension from work are based on different specific factual circumstances, and thus do not constitute double punishment. In addition, because the company’s internal rules contain no provision on a disciplinary limitation period, there is no room to argue that the employer’s disciplinary authority has lapsed due to expiry of such a period.
C. Legitimacy of the Disciplinary Grounds
Among the seven disciplinary grounds against the employee, the first‑instance Regional Labor Relations Commission did not recognize only ground 3 as a legitimate disciplinary ground. However:
(i) With respect to ground 2, it is difficult to attribute fault solely to the employee, given that the employee could hardly deny the authenticity of the materials submitted by a corporate member;
(ii) Ground 6 concerns holding the employee responsible for management failure in not obtaining a certificate of employment, but ground 5 already includes management responsibility relating to a lost‑item notice in a daily newspaper, so it is not appropriate to treat ground 6 as a separate disciplinary ground; and
(iii) As for ground 7, two instances in which the employee is confirmed to have waived amendment fees occurred more than eight years ago, and for the remaining instances the employer has failed to sufficiently prove specific non‑collection. Therefore, ground 7 cannot be regarded as a legitimate disciplinary ground.
D. Appropriateness of the Level of Disciplinary Sanction
Given that grounds 2, 3, 6, and 7 are not recognized as legitimate disciplinary grounds, and that, although the grounds differ, the employer had already imposed on the employee a three‑month pay reduction on 5 September 2023 (non‑party case), a three‑month suspension from work on 21 March 2024 (non‑party case), and a suspension from duty of approximately two months on 15 December 2024…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the application period for remedy regarding the suspension from duty had lapsed
The employer ordered the employee to be suspended from duty from 17 December 2024 until notification of the disciplinary decision, whereas the employee filed an application for remedy with the first‑instance Regional Labor Relations Commission on 8 May 2025. It is therefore clear that the application for remedy regarding the suspension from duty was filed after the three‑month exclusion period had lapsed.
B. Whether the case constitutes double punishment and whether any disciplinary limitation period had lapsed
With respect to the issues of double punishment and disciplinary limitation period, the disciplinary grounds in this case and those for the non‑party three‑month suspension from work are based on different specific factual circumstances, and thus do not constitute double punishment. In addition, because the company’s internal rules contain no provision on a disciplinary limitation period, there is no room to argue that the employer’s disciplinary authority has lapsed due to expiry of such a period.
C. Legitimacy of the Disciplinary Grounds
Among the seven disciplinary grounds against the employee, the first‑instance Regional Labor Relations Commission did not recognize only ground 3 as a legitimate disciplinary ground. However:
(i) With respect to ground 2, it is difficult to attribute fault solely to the employee, given that the employee could hardly deny the authenticity of the materials submitted by a corporate member;
(ii) Ground 6 concerns holding the employee responsible for management failure in not obtaining a certificate of employment, but ground 5 already includes management responsibility relating to a lost‑item notice in a daily newspaper, so it is not appropriate to treat ground 6 as a separate disciplinary ground; and
(iii) As for ground 7, two instances in which the employee is confirmed to have waived amendment fees occurred more than eight years ago, and for the remaining instances the employer has failed to sufficiently prove specific non‑collection. Therefore, ground 7 cannot be regarded as a legitimate disciplinary ground.
D. Appropriateness of the Level of Disciplinary Sanction
Given that grounds 2, 3, 6, and 7 are not recognized as legitimate disciplinary grounds, and that, although the grounds differ, the employer had already imposed on the employee a three‑month pay reduction on 5 September 2023 (non‑party case), a three‑month suspension from work on 21 March 2024 (non‑party case), and a suspension from duty of approximately two months on 15 December 2024…
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Employee Status · Application of Retirement Age (Employees Continuing after Retirement Age)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First‑instance upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary sanction (successive discipline · suspension from duty), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non‑compliance with work orders, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong‑dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Justifiability of Transfer (Failure to Submit Graduation Certificate)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to excessive disciplinary sanction (successive discipline · suspension from duty) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Related to Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Successive Discipline · Suspension from Duty).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
