Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management of PSD)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 340)
- Date2026/04/02 04:13
- Read 175
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision on the issue of “disciplinary severity (negligent management of PSD).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1726 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reexamination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.25 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct of “negligent management of platform screen doors (PSD)” constitutes grounds for discipline under Article 52(1) and (2) of the Personnel Regulations, and therefore the employer’s imposition of discipline on that basis is deemed justified.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a train crew employee received a disciplinary sanction (reprimand) for failing to properly manage the platform screen doors (PSD) and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for remedy of unfair dismissal (unfair discipline). The first-instance Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline but found the level of discipline to be excessive, and the Central Labor Relations Commission, on reexamination, upheld the first-instance decision.
In determining the legitimacy of discipline in unfair dismissal disputes, the Labor Relations Commission focuses not only on the grounds and procedures for discipline but also on whether the internal standards for determining disciplinary severity have been properly applied. In this respect, this case serves as an important reference for the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Although the disciplinary ground of negligent management of platform screen doors (PSD) is acknowledged, whether the reprimand imposed in disregard of the internal ‘standards for determining disciplinary severity in the event of accidents/failures’ constitutes an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that: the “standards for determining disciplinary severity in the event of accidents/failures” established by the Safety and Environment Department within the corporation are in substance accepted by train crew employees as binding disciplinary rules; that these standards, prepared under the former Metropolitan Headquarters system, have not been revised or amended even after the organizational restructuring into the Western and Eastern Metropolitan Headquarters and therefore continue to function as standards for determining disciplinary severity; that these standards further specify the Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations and there is no reason to regard them as separate or different criteria; and that the employer’s argument that stricter standards of severity should apply solely because the workplace operates under a one-person crew system rather than a two-person crew system is difficult to accept.
On this basis, although this case does not involve a dismissal, the same legal principles apply, and the reprimand imposed in this case was held to constitute an abuse or excess of the discretionary authority vested in the disciplinary authority and was therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even if one’s misconduct falls within the grounds for discipline under the Personnel Regulations, if the company imposes a sanction that is more severe than its internal standards for determining disciplinary severity, the employee should remember that it is possible to challenge this by filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission for remedy of unfair dismissal (unfair discipline). In particular, even in areas where the company asserts strict liability, such as safety accidents or redundancy dismissals, it is important to carefully examine whether the sanction is excessively severe compared to the disciplinary severity standards that have actually been applied in practice.
It is also necessary to check whether the disciplinary procedures were conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and whether the employee was given a sufficient opportunity to explain and defend themselves before the disciplinary committee.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where the grounds for discipline are clear and the formal disciplinary procedures have been followed, choosing a level of discipline that significantly deviates from the existing internal standards for determining disciplinary severity or internal guidelines may be deemed an abuse of discretionary authority. In particular, where standards of severity established by a specialized department such as the Safety and Environment Department have been operated for a long period without amendment, they may in effect be regarded as binding disciplinary rules, and thus consistency with the HR department’s practices should be reviewed in advance.
If the employer wishes to impose heavier sanctions on the grounds of operating a one-person crew system or due to the particular characteristics of a workplace, it should explicitly establish separate, reasonable standards and sufficiently notify employees before applying them. Absent such prior arrangements, arbitrarily increasing the severity of discipline only in individual cases significantly increases the risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find the discipline, and potentially the dismissal, to be unfair.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s misconduct of “negligent management of platform screen doors (PSD)” constitutes grounds for discipline under Article 52(1) and (2) of the Personnel Regulations, and therefore the employer’s imposition of discipline on that basis is deemed justified.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
(1) The “standards for determining disciplinary severity in the event of accidents/failures” established by the Safety and Environment Department, a specialized accident investigation unit within the corporation, appear to play a decisive role in determining disciplinary severity and are highly likely to be accepted by train crew employees as de facto binding disciplinary rules.
(2) The “standards for determining disciplinary severity in the event of accidents/failures” established by the Safety and Environment Department under the former Metropolitan Headquarters system have not been revised or amended even after the restructuring into the Western and Eastern Metropolitan Headquarters; it is therefore reasonable to view them as continuing to serve as standards for determining disciplinary severity as before.
(3) These standards established by the Safety and Environment Department further specify the Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations, and there is no reason at all to regard them as different criteria.
(4) The employer’s argument that stricter standards of severity should apply solely because the workplace operates under a one-person crew system, as compared to the Western Metropolitan Headquarters, which operates under a two-person crew system, cannot be accepted.
In light of the above, the level of discipline in the form of a reprimand in this case constitutes an abuse or excess of the discretionary authority vested in the employer and is unlawful.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
Notification of the convening of the disciplinary committee and its resolution were carried out in accordance with the relevant rules, and the employee attended the disciplinary reexamination committee and explained the alleged facts. No procedural defects in the disciplinary process were identified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s misconduct of “negligent management of platform screen doors (PSD)” constitutes grounds for discipline under Article 52(1) and (2) of the Personnel Regulations, and therefore the employer’s imposition of discipline on that basis is deemed justified.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
(1) The “standards for determining disciplinary severity in the event of accidents/failures” established by the Safety and Environment Department, a specialized accident investigation unit within the corporation, appear to play a decisive role in determining disciplinary severity and are highly likely to be accepted by train crew employees as de facto binding disciplinary rules.
(2) The “standards for determining disciplinary severity in the event of accidents/failures” established by the Safety and Environment Department under the former Metropolitan Headquarters system have not been revised or amended even after the restructuring into the Western and Eastern Metropolitan Headquarters; it is therefore reasonable to view them as continuing to serve as standards for determining disciplinary severity as before.
(3) These standards established by the Safety and Environment Department further specify the Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations, and there is no reason at all to regard them as different criteria.
(4) The employer’s argument that stricter standards of severity should apply solely because the workplace operates under a one-person crew system, as compared to the Western Metropolitan Headquarters, which operates under a two-person crew system, cannot be accepted.
In light of the above, the level of discipline in the form of a reprimand in this case constitutes an abuse or excess of the discretionary authority vested in the employer and is unlawful.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
Notification of the convening of the disciplinary committee and its resolution were carried out in accordance with the relevant rules, and the employee attended the disciplinary reexamination committee and explained the alleged facts. No procedural defects in the disciplinary process were identified. /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Refusal to Renew (C-Grade Performance Evaluation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expectation of Renewal (Non-Regular Employment Plan Following Changes in Workload)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (negligent management of PSD), disciplinary dismissal (including disciplinary measures and reprimands), violation of company policy · failure to comply 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 in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Expectation of Renewal (Non-Regular Employment Plan Following Changes in Workload) Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (negligent management of PSD) can be viewed together on the “Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management of PSD) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision on the issue of “disciplinary severity (negligent management of PSD).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1726 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reexamination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.25 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct of “negligent management of platform screen doors (PSD)” constitutes grounds for discipline under Article 52(1) and (2) of the Personnel Regulations, and therefore the employer’s imposition of discipline on that basis is deemed justified.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a train crew employee received a disciplinary sanction (reprimand) for failing to properly manage the platform screen doors (PSD) and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for remedy of unfair dismissal (unfair discipline). The first-instance Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline but found the level of discipline to be excessive, and the Central Labor Relations Commission, on reexamination, upheld the first-instance decision.
In determining the legitimacy of discipline in unfair dismissal disputes, the Labor Relations Commission focuses not only on the grounds and procedures for discipline but also on whether the internal standards for determining disciplinary severity have been properly applied. In this respect, this case serves as an important reference for the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Although the disciplinary ground of negligent management of platform screen doors (PSD) is acknowledged, whether the reprimand imposed in disregard of the internal ‘standards for determining disciplinary severity in the event of accidents/failures’ constitutes an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that: the “standards for determining disciplinary severity in the event of accidents/failures” established by the Safety and Environment Department within the corporation are in substance accepted by train crew employees as binding disciplinary rules; that these standards, prepared under the former Metropolitan Headquarters system, have not been revised or amended even after the organizational restructuring into the Western and Eastern Metropolitan Headquarters and therefore continue to function as standards for determining disciplinary severity; that these standards further specify the Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations and there is no reason to regard them as separate or different criteria; and that the employer’s argument that stricter standards of severity should apply solely because the workplace operates under a one-person crew system rather than a two-person crew system is difficult to accept.
On this basis, although this case does not involve a dismissal, the same legal principles apply, and the reprimand imposed in this case was held to constitute an abuse or excess of the discretionary authority vested in the disciplinary authority and was therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even if one’s misconduct falls within the grounds for discipline under the Personnel Regulations, if the company imposes a sanction that is more severe than its internal standards for determining disciplinary severity, the employee should remember that it is possible to challenge this by filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission for remedy of unfair dismissal (unfair discipline). In particular, even in areas where the company asserts strict liability, such as safety accidents or redundancy dismissals, it is important to carefully examine whether the sanction is excessively severe compared to the disciplinary severity standards that have actually been applied in practice.
It is also necessary to check whether the disciplinary procedures were conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and whether the employee was given a sufficient opportunity to explain and defend themselves before the disciplinary committee.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where the grounds for discipline are clear and the formal disciplinary procedures have been followed, choosing a level of discipline that significantly deviates from the existing internal standards for determining disciplinary severity or internal guidelines may be deemed an abuse of discretionary authority. In particular, where standards of severity established by a specialized department such as the Safety and Environment Department have been operated for a long period without amendment, they may in effect be regarded as binding disciplinary rules, and thus consistency with the HR department’s practices should be reviewed in advance.
If the employer wishes to impose heavier sanctions on the grounds of operating a one-person crew system or due to the particular characteristics of a workplace, it should explicitly establish separate, reasonable standards and sufficiently notify employees before applying them. Absent such prior arrangements, arbitrarily increasing the severity of discipline only in individual cases significantly increases the risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find the discipline, and potentially the dismissal, to be unfair.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s misconduct of “negligent management of platform screen doors (PSD)” constitutes grounds for discipline under Article 52(1) and (2) of the Personnel Regulations, and therefore the employer’s imposition of discipline on that basis is deemed justified.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
(1) The “standards for determining disciplinary severity in the event of accidents/failures” established by the Safety and Environment Department, a specialized accident investigation unit within the corporation, appear to play a decisive role in determining disciplinary severity and are highly likely to be accepted by train crew employees as de facto binding disciplinary rules.
(2) The “standards for determining disciplinary severity in the event of accidents/failures” established by the Safety and Environment Department under the former Metropolitan Headquarters system have not been revised or amended even after the restructuring into the Western and Eastern Metropolitan Headquarters; it is therefore reasonable to view them as continuing to serve as standards for determining disciplinary severity as before.
(3) These standards established by the Safety and Environment Department further specify the Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations, and there is no reason at all to regard them as different criteria.
(4) The employer’s argument that stricter standards of severity should apply solely because the workplace operates under a one-person crew system, as compared to the Western Metropolitan Headquarters, which operates under a two-person crew system, cannot be accepted.
In light of the above, the level of discipline in the form of a reprimand in this case constitutes an abuse or excess of the discretionary authority vested in the employer and is unlawful.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
Notification of the convening of the disciplinary committee and its resolution were carried out in accordance with the relevant rules, and the employee attended the disciplinary reexamination committee and explained the alleged facts. No procedural defects in the disciplinary process were identified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s misconduct of “negligent management of platform screen doors (PSD)” constitutes grounds for discipline under Article 52(1) and (2) of the Personnel Regulations, and therefore the employer’s imposition of discipline on that basis is deemed justified.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
(1) The “standards for determining disciplinary severity in the event of accidents/failures” established by the Safety and Environment Department, a specialized accident investigation unit within the corporation, appear to play a decisive role in determining disciplinary severity and are highly likely to be accepted by train crew employees as de facto binding disciplinary rules.
(2) The “standards for determining disciplinary severity in the event of accidents/failures” established by the Safety and Environment Department under the former Metropolitan Headquarters system have not been revised or amended even after the restructuring into the Western and Eastern Metropolitan Headquarters; it is therefore reasonable to view them as continuing to serve as standards for determining disciplinary severity as before.
(3) These standards established by the Safety and Environment Department further specify the Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations, and there is no reason at all to regard them as different criteria.
(4) The employer’s argument that stricter standards of severity should apply solely because the workplace operates under a one-person crew system, as compared to the Western Metropolitan Headquarters, which operates under a two-person crew system, cannot be accepted.
In light of the above, the level of discipline in the form of a reprimand in this case constitutes an abuse or excess of the discretionary authority vested in the employer and is unlawful.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
Notification of the convening of the disciplinary committee and its resolution were carried out in accordance with the relevant rules, and the employee attended the disciplinary reexamination committee and explained the alleged facts. No procedural defects in the disciplinary process were identified. /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Refusal to Renew (C-Grade Performance Evaluation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expectation of Renewal (Non-Regular Employment Plan Following Changes in Workload)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (negligent management of PSD), disciplinary dismissal (including disciplinary measures and reprimands), violation of company policy · failure to comply 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 in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Expectation of Renewal (Non-Regular Employment Plan Following Changes in Workload) Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (negligent management of PSD) can be viewed together on the “Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management of PSD) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
