Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Note on “Disciplinary Severity (19 Instances of Tardiness/Early Leave)” (Unfair Dismissal 343)
- Date2026/04/03 04:13
- Read 175
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (19 instances of tardiness/early leave).”
Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, Case No. 2025부해10109 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.24 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline: The number of instances of tardiness and early leave reached 19, and the employee acknowledged this, so the Commission found that grounds for discipline existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: (1) The employee’s total of 19 instances of tardiness/early leave between 22 February 2025 and 26 July 2025 constituted serious neglect of duties; (2) the employee had already received a warning on 4 December 2023 for poor work performance and, on 24 January 2025, a two‑month pay reduction for breach of the duty of fidelity, etc.; …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had been disciplined for repeated tardiness and early leave filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the disciplinary measure constituted unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. Labor Law Firm Law& frequently advises on similar cases where the severity and procedure of discipline are the core issues. This decision can be used to整理 the criteria for determining unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where there were 19 instances of tardiness/early leave and prior disciplinary records of warning and pay reduction, a further severe disciplinary measure (such as suspension) imposed as additional discipline is justified in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) level of discipline, and (iii) disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case noted that the number of instances of tardiness and early leave reached 19 and that the employee personally acknowledged this; that the employee had a prior disciplinary record, having received a warning for poor work performance and a two‑month pay reduction for breach of the duty of fidelity, etc.; and that under the disciplinary rules, where there is at least one prior disciplinary disposition, a pay reduction may be aggravated to suspension, and where the degree of misconduct is serious and there is intent or gross negligence, severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal or suspension are permitted.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the dismissal in this case was based on valid grounds for discipline and that the level of discipline could not be regarded as markedly excessive by social standards. It further found that the disciplinary procedures—notice of attendance, opportunity to explain, disciplinary resolution by anonymous vote, and delivery of the written disciplinary notice—had been lawfully conducted, and therefore did not find the dismissal to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that poor attendance, such as repeated tardiness and early leave, does not necessarily end as a minor issue; if accumulated, it can lead to suspension or even dismissal. In particular, if the same or similar misconduct is repeated after a prior disciplinary measure such as a warning or pay reduction, the Labor Relations Commission is likely to consider a severe disciplinary measure by the employer to be justified. When attending a disciplinary committee, rather than denying the facts, it is helpful for preventing future disputes to explain the reasons and your intention to improve in concrete terms and to present specific measures to prevent recurrence.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when imposing discipline for attendance issues such as tardiness and early leave, it is advisable to clearly establish in the rules of employment and disciplinary regulations a stepwise disciplinary structure (warning → pay reduction → suspension → dismissal) and to apply it consistently to actual cases. When convening a disciplinary committee, the notice of attendance should specify the concrete grounds for discipline and the date and place, and the employee should be given a genuine opportunity to explain. The deliberation and resolution process of the disciplinary committee members should be recorded in minutes or similar documents to increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. In addition, to avoid the level of discipline being deemed excessive by social standards, a reasonable level of discipline should be selected after comprehensively considering the number and period of the misconduct, prior disciplinary history, and the degree of neglect of duties.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since the number of instances of tardiness and early leave reached 19 and the employee acknowledged this, the Commission found that grounds for discipline existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
(1) The employee’s total of 19 instances of tardiness/early leave between 22 February 2025 and 26 July 2025 constituted serious neglect of duties;
(2) the employee had a prior disciplinary record, having already received a warning on 4 December 2023 for poor work performance and, on 24 January 2025, a two‑month pay reduction for breach of the duty of fidelity, etc.;
(3) under the disciplinary rules, where there is at least one prior disciplinary disposition, a pay reduction may be aggravated to suspension, and where the degree of misconduct is serious and there is intent or gross negligence, severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal or suspension are permitted.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the level of discipline was appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
(1) The employer delivered a notice of attendance to the employee, and the reason for attendance was specifically stated;
(2) the employee attended the disciplinary committee and presented an explanation, and the disciplinary committee resolved on a three‑month suspension by anonymous vote of its five members;
(3) the employer delivered a written disciplinary notice to the employee and then implemented the discipline.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the disciplinary procedures were lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since the number of instances of tardiness and early leave reached 19 and the employee acknowledged this, the Commission found that grounds for discipline existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
(1) The employee’s total of 19 instances of tardiness/early leave between 22 February 2025 and 26 July 2025 constituted serious neglect of duties;
(2) the employee had a prior disciplinary record, having already received a warning on 4 December 2023 for poor work performance and, on 24 January 2025, a two‑month pay reduction for breach of the duty of fidelity, etc.;
(3) under the disciplinary rules, where there is at least one prior disciplinary disposition, a pay reduction may be aggravated to suspension, and where the degree of misconduct is serious and there is intent or gross negligence, severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal or suspension are permitted.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the level of discipline was appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
(1) The employer delivered a notice of attendance to the employee, and the reason for attendance was specifically stated;
(2) the employee attended the disciplinary committee and presented an explanation, and the disciplinary committee resolved on a three‑month suspension by anonymous vote of its five members;
(3) the employer delivered a written disciplinary notice to the employee and then implemented the discipline.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the disciplinary procedures were lawful.
/
[More Related Case Notes]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Note on Expression of Intent to Resign (Oral Resignation by Restaurant Employee)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Note on Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Note on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (19 instances of tardiness/early leave), unauthorized absence, violation of company policy/non‑compliance with work instructions, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Note” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Note on Mischaracterization of Dismissal (Automatic Retirement Before Mandatory Retirement Age),” in a new window.
※ The list of case notes related to disciplinary severity (19 instances of tardiness/early leave) can be found together in the “List of Case Notes Related to Disciplinary Severity (19 Instances of Tardiness/Early Leave).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (19 instances of tardiness/early leave).”
Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, Case No. 2025부해10109 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.24 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline: The number of instances of tardiness and early leave reached 19, and the employee acknowledged this, so the Commission found that grounds for discipline existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: (1) The employee’s total of 19 instances of tardiness/early leave between 22 February 2025 and 26 July 2025 constituted serious neglect of duties; (2) the employee had already received a warning on 4 December 2023 for poor work performance and, on 24 January 2025, a two‑month pay reduction for breach of the duty of fidelity, etc.; …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had been disciplined for repeated tardiness and early leave filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the disciplinary measure constituted unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. Labor Law Firm Law& frequently advises on similar cases where the severity and procedure of discipline are the core issues. This decision can be used to整理 the criteria for determining unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where there were 19 instances of tardiness/early leave and prior disciplinary records of warning and pay reduction, a further severe disciplinary measure (such as suspension) imposed as additional discipline is justified in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) level of discipline, and (iii) disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case noted that the number of instances of tardiness and early leave reached 19 and that the employee personally acknowledged this; that the employee had a prior disciplinary record, having received a warning for poor work performance and a two‑month pay reduction for breach of the duty of fidelity, etc.; and that under the disciplinary rules, where there is at least one prior disciplinary disposition, a pay reduction may be aggravated to suspension, and where the degree of misconduct is serious and there is intent or gross negligence, severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal or suspension are permitted.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the dismissal in this case was based on valid grounds for discipline and that the level of discipline could not be regarded as markedly excessive by social standards. It further found that the disciplinary procedures—notice of attendance, opportunity to explain, disciplinary resolution by anonymous vote, and delivery of the written disciplinary notice—had been lawfully conducted, and therefore did not find the dismissal to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that poor attendance, such as repeated tardiness and early leave, does not necessarily end as a minor issue; if accumulated, it can lead to suspension or even dismissal. In particular, if the same or similar misconduct is repeated after a prior disciplinary measure such as a warning or pay reduction, the Labor Relations Commission is likely to consider a severe disciplinary measure by the employer to be justified. When attending a disciplinary committee, rather than denying the facts, it is helpful for preventing future disputes to explain the reasons and your intention to improve in concrete terms and to present specific measures to prevent recurrence.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when imposing discipline for attendance issues such as tardiness and early leave, it is advisable to clearly establish in the rules of employment and disciplinary regulations a stepwise disciplinary structure (warning → pay reduction → suspension → dismissal) and to apply it consistently to actual cases. When convening a disciplinary committee, the notice of attendance should specify the concrete grounds for discipline and the date and place, and the employee should be given a genuine opportunity to explain. The deliberation and resolution process of the disciplinary committee members should be recorded in minutes or similar documents to increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. In addition, to avoid the level of discipline being deemed excessive by social standards, a reasonable level of discipline should be selected after comprehensively considering the number and period of the misconduct, prior disciplinary history, and the degree of neglect of duties.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since the number of instances of tardiness and early leave reached 19 and the employee acknowledged this, the Commission found that grounds for discipline existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
(1) The employee’s total of 19 instances of tardiness/early leave between 22 February 2025 and 26 July 2025 constituted serious neglect of duties;
(2) the employee had a prior disciplinary record, having already received a warning on 4 December 2023 for poor work performance and, on 24 January 2025, a two‑month pay reduction for breach of the duty of fidelity, etc.;
(3) under the disciplinary rules, where there is at least one prior disciplinary disposition, a pay reduction may be aggravated to suspension, and where the degree of misconduct is serious and there is intent or gross negligence, severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal or suspension are permitted.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the level of discipline was appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
(1) The employer delivered a notice of attendance to the employee, and the reason for attendance was specifically stated;
(2) the employee attended the disciplinary committee and presented an explanation, and the disciplinary committee resolved on a three‑month suspension by anonymous vote of its five members;
(3) the employer delivered a written disciplinary notice to the employee and then implemented the discipline.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the disciplinary procedures were lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since the number of instances of tardiness and early leave reached 19 and the employee acknowledged this, the Commission found that grounds for discipline existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
(1) The employee’s total of 19 instances of tardiness/early leave between 22 February 2025 and 26 July 2025 constituted serious neglect of duties;
(2) the employee had a prior disciplinary record, having already received a warning on 4 December 2023 for poor work performance and, on 24 January 2025, a two‑month pay reduction for breach of the duty of fidelity, etc.;
(3) under the disciplinary rules, where there is at least one prior disciplinary disposition, a pay reduction may be aggravated to suspension, and where the degree of misconduct is serious and there is intent or gross negligence, severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal or suspension are permitted.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the level of discipline was appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
(1) The employer delivered a notice of attendance to the employee, and the reason for attendance was specifically stated;
(2) the employee attended the disciplinary committee and presented an explanation, and the disciplinary committee resolved on a three‑month suspension by anonymous vote of its five members;
(3) the employer delivered a written disciplinary notice to the employee and then implemented the discipline.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the disciplinary procedures were lawful.
/
[More Related Case Notes]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Note on Expression of Intent to Resign (Oral Resignation by Restaurant Employee)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Note on Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Note on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (19 instances of tardiness/early leave), unauthorized absence, violation of company policy/non‑compliance with work instructions, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Note” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Note on Mischaracterization of Dismissal (Automatic Retirement Before Mandatory Retirement Age),” in a new window.
※ The list of case notes related to disciplinary severity (19 instances of tardiness/early leave) can be found together in the “List of Case Notes Related to Disciplinary Severity (19 Instances of Tardiness/Early Leave).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
