Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Measures (Unauthorized Absence · Non-Compliance with Work Orders)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 317)
- Date2026/03/26 04:14
- Read 211
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld, on the issue of “disciplinary measures (unauthorized absence · non-compliance with work orders).”
Decision Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1426 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re-Examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.09 · Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The worker’s grounds for discipline 1 through 4 — unauthorized use of the manager’s computer, failure to comply with a request to submit a written explanation, failure to perform assigned EK duties, refusal of a personnel transfer and unauthorized absence — fall under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 62 (Discipline), subparagraphs 4, 7, 8, and 14 of the Rules of Employment, and therefore it was deemed legitimate to rely on these as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The worker’s grounds for discipline 1 through 4 are all recognized as grounds for discipline, and…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a re-examination for remedy of unfair dismissal, arising from a situation where a worker (i) used the manager’s computer without authorization, (ii) failed to comply with a request to submit a written explanation (statement of explanation), (iii) did not perform designated EK duties, and (iv) refused a personnel transfer and then was absent without leave. The worker applied to the Labor Relations Commission for remedy, claiming that the disciplinary dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal. However, both the first-instance decision and the Central Labor Relations Commission’s re-examination sided with the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation involving multiple acts of misconduct — unauthorized use of a manager’s PC, refusal to submit a written explanation, non-performance of duties, refusal of a personnel transfer, and unauthorized absence — the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal can be recognized, and in particular, whether the level of discipline constitutes an unfair dismissal in that it is, by social norms, conspicuously lacking in reasonableness.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that the worker’s unauthorized use of the manager’s computer, failure to comply with the request to prepare a written explanation, failure to perform EK duties, refusal of a personnel transfer, and unauthorized absence all fell under the grounds for discipline stipulated in the Rules of Employment. In particular, the unauthorized absence was regarded as a direct violation of the worker’s most basic obligation to report to work and provide labor, thereby seriously undermining the relationship of trust with the employer. Taking these circumstances together, the panel held that, according to social norms, it was difficult to continue the employment relationship, and that it could not be said that the disciplinary authority’s exercise of discretion had conspicuously lost its reasonableness. On this basis, the disciplinary dismissal was found to be justified.
The dismissal in this case was held not to constitute an unfair dismissal, on the grounds that there were no serious defects in the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of discipline imposed, or the manner in which the disciplinary procedures were conducted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that unauthorized absence is not merely a simple absence, but can constitute a serious ground for discipline that violates the most fundamental obligations under the employment contract and can sever the relationship of trust with the employer. In addition, if a worker unilaterally refuses to comply with requests to submit a written explanation or statement of explanation, legitimate personnel transfers, or work orders, each individual ground may accumulate and lead to an escalation of disciplinary measures up to dismissal. Accordingly, it is necessary to establish a response strategy after reviewing the facts and applicable legal principles.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to specify the grounds and types of discipline in the Rules of Employment in concrete terms, and to secure evidentiary materials demonstrating that the misconduct clearly falls within those provisions. Furthermore, even where there are multiple grounds for discipline, the employer should determine the level of discipline after comprehensively considering the seriousness of each ground, the frequency of occurrence, and the impact on work. It is also necessary to ensure procedural fairness, including convening a personnel committee, delivering the statement of explanation, and determining the method of the meeting (in-person, video conference, etc.), so that the legitimacy of the disciplinary action can be more readily recognized at the Labor Relations Commission stage.
In disciplinary dismissal disputes of this type, it is essential to fully understand the legal principles applied by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts in assessing “the possibility of maintaining the employment relationship according to social norms” and whether there has been an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority, and to systematically organize the facts in line with those principles. This is the key practical point for which the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& should be sought.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The worker’s grounds for discipline 1 through 4 — unauthorized use of the manager’s computer, failure to comply with a request to prepare a written explanation, failure to perform EK duties, refusal of a personnel transfer and unauthorized absence — fall under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 62 (Discipline), subparagraphs 4, 7, 8, and 14 of the Rules of Employment, and therefore it is deemed legitimate to rely on these as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The worker’s grounds for discipline 1 through 4 are all recognized as grounds for discipline. In particular, unauthorized absence constitutes a failure to perform the worker’s most basic obligations, and as a result, the relationship of trust between the parties has been damaged to such an extent that, according to social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. Therefore, the dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority as an exercise of its discretion cannot be regarded as having, by social norms, conspicuously lost its reasonableness, nor can it be viewed as an abuse of the discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
It appears that the statement of explanation submitted by the worker was delivered to the members of the personnel committee before the committee was convened, and that the personnel committee was held by video conference. Accordingly, it was determined that there were no procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The worker’s grounds for discipline 1 through 4 — unauthorized use of the manager’s computer, failure to comply with a request to prepare a written explanation, failure to perform EK duties, refusal of a personnel transfer and unauthorized absence — fall under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 62 (Discipline), subparagraphs 4, 7, 8, and 14 of the Rules of Employment, and therefore it is deemed legitimate to rely on these as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The worker’s grounds for discipline 1 through 4 are all recognized as grounds for discipline. In particular, unauthorized absence constitutes a failure to perform the worker’s most basic obligations, and as a result, the relationship of trust between the parties has been damaged to such an extent that, according to social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. Therefore, the dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority as an exercise of its discretion cannot be regarded as having, by social norms, conspicuously lost its reasonableness, nor can it be viewed as an abuse of the discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
It appears that the statement of explanation submitted by the worker was delivered to the members of the personnel committee before the committee was convened, and that the personnel committee was held by video conference. Accordingly, it was determined that there were no procedural defects. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Decision Date: – Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Decision Date: – Case Result: Dismissal (of Application)
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary measures (unauthorized absence · non-compliance with work orders), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Denial of Employee Status (IT Freelancer),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary measures (unauthorized absence · non-compliance with work orders) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Measures (Unauthorized Absence · Non-Compliance with Work Orders).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld, on the issue of “disciplinary measures (unauthorized absence · non-compliance with work orders).”
Decision Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1426 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re-Examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.09 · Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The worker’s grounds for discipline 1 through 4 — unauthorized use of the manager’s computer, failure to comply with a request to submit a written explanation, failure to perform assigned EK duties, refusal of a personnel transfer and unauthorized absence — fall under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 62 (Discipline), subparagraphs 4, 7, 8, and 14 of the Rules of Employment, and therefore it was deemed legitimate to rely on these as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The worker’s grounds for discipline 1 through 4 are all recognized as grounds for discipline, and…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a re-examination for remedy of unfair dismissal, arising from a situation where a worker (i) used the manager’s computer without authorization, (ii) failed to comply with a request to submit a written explanation (statement of explanation), (iii) did not perform designated EK duties, and (iv) refused a personnel transfer and then was absent without leave. The worker applied to the Labor Relations Commission for remedy, claiming that the disciplinary dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal. However, both the first-instance decision and the Central Labor Relations Commission’s re-examination sided with the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation involving multiple acts of misconduct — unauthorized use of a manager’s PC, refusal to submit a written explanation, non-performance of duties, refusal of a personnel transfer, and unauthorized absence — the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal can be recognized, and in particular, whether the level of discipline constitutes an unfair dismissal in that it is, by social norms, conspicuously lacking in reasonableness.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that the worker’s unauthorized use of the manager’s computer, failure to comply with the request to prepare a written explanation, failure to perform EK duties, refusal of a personnel transfer, and unauthorized absence all fell under the grounds for discipline stipulated in the Rules of Employment. In particular, the unauthorized absence was regarded as a direct violation of the worker’s most basic obligation to report to work and provide labor, thereby seriously undermining the relationship of trust with the employer. Taking these circumstances together, the panel held that, according to social norms, it was difficult to continue the employment relationship, and that it could not be said that the disciplinary authority’s exercise of discretion had conspicuously lost its reasonableness. On this basis, the disciplinary dismissal was found to be justified.
The dismissal in this case was held not to constitute an unfair dismissal, on the grounds that there were no serious defects in the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of discipline imposed, or the manner in which the disciplinary procedures were conducted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that unauthorized absence is not merely a simple absence, but can constitute a serious ground for discipline that violates the most fundamental obligations under the employment contract and can sever the relationship of trust with the employer. In addition, if a worker unilaterally refuses to comply with requests to submit a written explanation or statement of explanation, legitimate personnel transfers, or work orders, each individual ground may accumulate and lead to an escalation of disciplinary measures up to dismissal. Accordingly, it is necessary to establish a response strategy after reviewing the facts and applicable legal principles.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to specify the grounds and types of discipline in the Rules of Employment in concrete terms, and to secure evidentiary materials demonstrating that the misconduct clearly falls within those provisions. Furthermore, even where there are multiple grounds for discipline, the employer should determine the level of discipline after comprehensively considering the seriousness of each ground, the frequency of occurrence, and the impact on work. It is also necessary to ensure procedural fairness, including convening a personnel committee, delivering the statement of explanation, and determining the method of the meeting (in-person, video conference, etc.), so that the legitimacy of the disciplinary action can be more readily recognized at the Labor Relations Commission stage.
In disciplinary dismissal disputes of this type, it is essential to fully understand the legal principles applied by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts in assessing “the possibility of maintaining the employment relationship according to social norms” and whether there has been an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority, and to systematically organize the facts in line with those principles. This is the key practical point for which the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& should be sought.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The worker’s grounds for discipline 1 through 4 — unauthorized use of the manager’s computer, failure to comply with a request to prepare a written explanation, failure to perform EK duties, refusal of a personnel transfer and unauthorized absence — fall under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 62 (Discipline), subparagraphs 4, 7, 8, and 14 of the Rules of Employment, and therefore it is deemed legitimate to rely on these as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The worker’s grounds for discipline 1 through 4 are all recognized as grounds for discipline. In particular, unauthorized absence constitutes a failure to perform the worker’s most basic obligations, and as a result, the relationship of trust between the parties has been damaged to such an extent that, according to social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. Therefore, the dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority as an exercise of its discretion cannot be regarded as having, by social norms, conspicuously lost its reasonableness, nor can it be viewed as an abuse of the discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
It appears that the statement of explanation submitted by the worker was delivered to the members of the personnel committee before the committee was convened, and that the personnel committee was held by video conference. Accordingly, it was determined that there were no procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The worker’s grounds for discipline 1 through 4 — unauthorized use of the manager’s computer, failure to comply with a request to prepare a written explanation, failure to perform EK duties, refusal of a personnel transfer and unauthorized absence — fall under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 62 (Discipline), subparagraphs 4, 7, 8, and 14 of the Rules of Employment, and therefore it is deemed legitimate to rely on these as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The worker’s grounds for discipline 1 through 4 are all recognized as grounds for discipline. In particular, unauthorized absence constitutes a failure to perform the worker’s most basic obligations, and as a result, the relationship of trust between the parties has been damaged to such an extent that, according to social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. Therefore, the dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority as an exercise of its discretion cannot be regarded as having, by social norms, conspicuously lost its reasonableness, nor can it be viewed as an abuse of the discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
It appears that the statement of explanation submitted by the worker was delivered to the members of the personnel committee before the committee was convened, and that the personnel committee was held by video conference. Accordingly, it was determined that there were no procedural defects. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Decision Date: – Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Decision Date: – Case Result: Dismissal (of Application)
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary measures (unauthorized absence · non-compliance with work orders), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Denial of Employee Status (IT Freelancer),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary measures (unauthorized absence · non-compliance with work orders) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Measures (Unauthorized Absence · Non-Compliance with Work Orders).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
