Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Breach of Duty of Obedience (Reposting of Recruitment Notice)” (Unfair Dismissal 344)
- Date2026/04/04 04:04
- Read 165
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “breach of duty of obedience (reposting of recruitment notice).”
Adjudicating body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025부해264 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.24 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
Although the employer clearly communicated that recruitment-related tasks would be handled by the corporation, the employee posted a recruitment notice on the corporation’s website and on an external recruitment site. Thereafter, even after the chairperson of the board instructed that the notice be deleted, the employee reposted the recruitment notice. These facts were confirmed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee came into conflict with the employer over recruitment-related tasks and was subjected to a disciplinary measure of a three‑month pay cut. The employee then brought the matter before the Labor Relations Commission, challenging it as unfair dismissal, among other claims.
The Commission conducted hearings focusing on: (i) whether the grounds for discipline existed, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the lawfulness of the re‑disciplinary procedure following the amendment of the work rules.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a three‑month pay cut imposed as discipline, based on the employee’s unilateral posting and reposting of a recruitment notice despite the employer’s clear instruction that all recruitment tasks would be handled centrally by the corporation, is justified in terms of the grounds, the level, and the procedure of discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel found that: despite the employer’s clear statement that recruitment‑related tasks would be handled by the corporation, the employee posted a recruitment notice on the corporation’s website and on an external recruitment site; even after the chairperson of the board instructed that the notice be deleted, the employee again posted a recruitment notice; such conduct constitutes a breach of the duty of obedience under the work rules and personnel regulations; the employer had initially considered a demotion or suspension but, reflecting the purport of the Labor Relations Commission’s earlier decision, reduced the level of discipline to a three‑month pay cut; and the amendment of the work rules, followed by the convening of a personnel committee under the amended rules and the granting of an opportunity for the employee to state his/her opinion, was carried out through a board resolution and notice to employees.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the disciplinary dismissal in this case was based on valid grounds, that the level of discipline could not be regarded as manifestly excessive by social standards, and that there were no serious defects in the amendment of the work rules or in the disciplinary procedure during the re‑disciplinary process. Accordingly, the employer’s disciplinary action was found to be justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that, even if instructions regarding the allocation of duties and authority seem somewhat unreasonable, they are obliged to comply with such instructions unless they are clearly unlawful or constitute an abuse of rights. In particular, in areas that directly affect organizational order—such as recruitment and personnel matters—repeated unilateral actions that run counter to explicit instructions from a superior may be recognized as serious grounds for discipline, including pay cuts, suspension, or dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important for dispute prevention to clearly set out recruitment and personnel authority and procedures in the work rules and personnel regulations, and to communicate them specifically not only verbally but also via email, official notices, and similar means.
When determining the level of discipline, employers should comprehensively consider factors such as the employee’s prior disciplinary history, whether the misconduct is repeated, and the impact on organizational order, and should adjust the level step‑by‑step so that it is not excessively harsh by social standards. Employers should also rigorously ensure procedural fairness by convening a personnel committee and providing the employee with an opportunity to present his/her views.
In order for employers to prevail at the Labor Relations Commission stage in cases of this type, it is crucial to: substantiate the specific facts underlying the grounds for discipline with objective evidence; systematically demonstrate that the level of discipline does not constitute an abuse of discretion; and show that the amendment of the work rules and the disciplinary procedures comply with the standards required by statutes and case law. These points should be thoroughly understood together with Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
Although the employer clearly communicated its intention that recruitment‑related tasks would be handled by the corporation, the employee posted a recruitment notice on the corporation’s website and on an external recruitment site. Thereafter, even after the chairperson of the board instructed that the notice be deleted, the employee reposted the recruitment notice. Such conduct constitutes a failure to comply with a legitimate work instruction from a superior and thus falls under a breach of the duty of obedience as set out in the work rules and personnel regulations. Accordingly, the grounds for discipline are recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s conduct violated an explicit work instruction from a superior and is an act that may undermine organizational order. Meanwhile, the employer had initially considered a disciplinary measure at the level of demotion, then mitigated it to suspension, and, thereafter, reflecting the purport of the Labor Relations Commission’s decision, appears to have further reduced the level of discipline to a three‑month pay cut. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the three‑month pay cut imposed in this case as a disciplinary measure that is manifestly unreasonable and excessively harsh by social standards.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
After the previous disciplinary disposition was revoked by a Labor Relations Commission decision, the employer amended its work rules, and it was confirmed that this amendment was adopted by a resolution of the board of directors. It also appears that the amended work rules were notified to the employees. Thereafter, in accordance with the amended work rules, the employer convened a personnel committee to deliberate and resolve on whether to impose discipline and provided the employee with an opportunity to state his/her opinion. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is difficult to find that the amendment of the work rules was unlawful, and it is likewise difficult to regard as unlawful the conduct of the disciplinary procedure under the amended work rules that were in effect at the time of the re‑discipline.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
Although the employer clearly communicated its intention that recruitment‑related tasks would be handled by the corporation, the employee posted a recruitment notice on the corporation’s website and on an external recruitment site. Thereafter, even after the chairperson of the board instructed that the notice be deleted, the employee reposted the recruitment notice. Such conduct constitutes a failure to comply with a legitimate work instruction from a superior and thus falls under a breach of the duty of obedience as set out in the work rules and personnel regulations. Accordingly, the grounds for discipline are recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s conduct violated an explicit work instruction from a superior and is an act that may undermine organizational order. Meanwhile, the employer had initially considered a disciplinary measure at the level of demotion, then mitigated it to suspension, and, thereafter, reflecting the purport of the Labor Relations Commission’s decision, appears to have further reduced the level of discipline to a three‑month pay cut. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the three‑month pay cut imposed in this case as a disciplinary measure that is manifestly unreasonable and excessively harsh by social standards.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
After the previous disciplinary disposition was revoked by a Labor Relations Commission decision, the employer amended its work rules, and it was confirmed that this amendment was adopted by a resolution of the board of directors. It also appears that the amended work rules were notified to the employees. Thereafter, in accordance with the amended work rules, the employer convened a personnel committee to deliberate and resolve on whether to impose discipline and provided the employee with an opportunity to state his/her opinion. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is difficult to find that the amendment of the work rules was unlawful, and it is likewise difficult to regard as unlawful the conduct of the disciplinary procedure under the amended work rules that were in effect at the time of the re‑discipline. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non‑Establishment of Recruitment Contract (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, breach of duty of obedience (reposting of recruitment notice), 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Level of Discipline (19 Instances of Tardiness and Early Leave)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to breach of duty of obedience (reposting of recruitment notice) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Breach of Duty of Obedience (Reposting of Recruitment Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “breach of duty of obedience (reposting of recruitment notice).”
Adjudicating body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025부해264 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.24 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
Although the employer clearly communicated that recruitment-related tasks would be handled by the corporation, the employee posted a recruitment notice on the corporation’s website and on an external recruitment site. Thereafter, even after the chairperson of the board instructed that the notice be deleted, the employee reposted the recruitment notice. These facts were confirmed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee came into conflict with the employer over recruitment-related tasks and was subjected to a disciplinary measure of a three‑month pay cut. The employee then brought the matter before the Labor Relations Commission, challenging it as unfair dismissal, among other claims.
The Commission conducted hearings focusing on: (i) whether the grounds for discipline existed, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the lawfulness of the re‑disciplinary procedure following the amendment of the work rules.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a three‑month pay cut imposed as discipline, based on the employee’s unilateral posting and reposting of a recruitment notice despite the employer’s clear instruction that all recruitment tasks would be handled centrally by the corporation, is justified in terms of the grounds, the level, and the procedure of discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel found that: despite the employer’s clear statement that recruitment‑related tasks would be handled by the corporation, the employee posted a recruitment notice on the corporation’s website and on an external recruitment site; even after the chairperson of the board instructed that the notice be deleted, the employee again posted a recruitment notice; such conduct constitutes a breach of the duty of obedience under the work rules and personnel regulations; the employer had initially considered a demotion or suspension but, reflecting the purport of the Labor Relations Commission’s earlier decision, reduced the level of discipline to a three‑month pay cut; and the amendment of the work rules, followed by the convening of a personnel committee under the amended rules and the granting of an opportunity for the employee to state his/her opinion, was carried out through a board resolution and notice to employees.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the disciplinary dismissal in this case was based on valid grounds, that the level of discipline could not be regarded as manifestly excessive by social standards, and that there were no serious defects in the amendment of the work rules or in the disciplinary procedure during the re‑disciplinary process. Accordingly, the employer’s disciplinary action was found to be justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that, even if instructions regarding the allocation of duties and authority seem somewhat unreasonable, they are obliged to comply with such instructions unless they are clearly unlawful or constitute an abuse of rights. In particular, in areas that directly affect organizational order—such as recruitment and personnel matters—repeated unilateral actions that run counter to explicit instructions from a superior may be recognized as serious grounds for discipline, including pay cuts, suspension, or dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important for dispute prevention to clearly set out recruitment and personnel authority and procedures in the work rules and personnel regulations, and to communicate them specifically not only verbally but also via email, official notices, and similar means.
When determining the level of discipline, employers should comprehensively consider factors such as the employee’s prior disciplinary history, whether the misconduct is repeated, and the impact on organizational order, and should adjust the level step‑by‑step so that it is not excessively harsh by social standards. Employers should also rigorously ensure procedural fairness by convening a personnel committee and providing the employee with an opportunity to present his/her views.
In order for employers to prevail at the Labor Relations Commission stage in cases of this type, it is crucial to: substantiate the specific facts underlying the grounds for discipline with objective evidence; systematically demonstrate that the level of discipline does not constitute an abuse of discretion; and show that the amendment of the work rules and the disciplinary procedures comply with the standards required by statutes and case law. These points should be thoroughly understood together with Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
Although the employer clearly communicated its intention that recruitment‑related tasks would be handled by the corporation, the employee posted a recruitment notice on the corporation’s website and on an external recruitment site. Thereafter, even after the chairperson of the board instructed that the notice be deleted, the employee reposted the recruitment notice. Such conduct constitutes a failure to comply with a legitimate work instruction from a superior and thus falls under a breach of the duty of obedience as set out in the work rules and personnel regulations. Accordingly, the grounds for discipline are recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s conduct violated an explicit work instruction from a superior and is an act that may undermine organizational order. Meanwhile, the employer had initially considered a disciplinary measure at the level of demotion, then mitigated it to suspension, and, thereafter, reflecting the purport of the Labor Relations Commission’s decision, appears to have further reduced the level of discipline to a three‑month pay cut. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the three‑month pay cut imposed in this case as a disciplinary measure that is manifestly unreasonable and excessively harsh by social standards.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
After the previous disciplinary disposition was revoked by a Labor Relations Commission decision, the employer amended its work rules, and it was confirmed that this amendment was adopted by a resolution of the board of directors. It also appears that the amended work rules were notified to the employees. Thereafter, in accordance with the amended work rules, the employer convened a personnel committee to deliberate and resolve on whether to impose discipline and provided the employee with an opportunity to state his/her opinion. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is difficult to find that the amendment of the work rules was unlawful, and it is likewise difficult to regard as unlawful the conduct of the disciplinary procedure under the amended work rules that were in effect at the time of the re‑discipline.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
Although the employer clearly communicated its intention that recruitment‑related tasks would be handled by the corporation, the employee posted a recruitment notice on the corporation’s website and on an external recruitment site. Thereafter, even after the chairperson of the board instructed that the notice be deleted, the employee reposted the recruitment notice. Such conduct constitutes a failure to comply with a legitimate work instruction from a superior and thus falls under a breach of the duty of obedience as set out in the work rules and personnel regulations. Accordingly, the grounds for discipline are recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s conduct violated an explicit work instruction from a superior and is an act that may undermine organizational order. Meanwhile, the employer had initially considered a disciplinary measure at the level of demotion, then mitigated it to suspension, and, thereafter, reflecting the purport of the Labor Relations Commission’s decision, appears to have further reduced the level of discipline to a three‑month pay cut. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the three‑month pay cut imposed in this case as a disciplinary measure that is manifestly unreasonable and excessively harsh by social standards.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
After the previous disciplinary disposition was revoked by a Labor Relations Commission decision, the employer amended its work rules, and it was confirmed that this amendment was adopted by a resolution of the board of directors. It also appears that the amended work rules were notified to the employees. Thereafter, in accordance with the amended work rules, the employer convened a personnel committee to deliberate and resolve on whether to impose discipline and provided the employee with an opportunity to state his/her opinion. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is difficult to find that the amendment of the work rules was unlawful, and it is likewise difficult to regard as unlawful the conduct of the disciplinary procedure under the amended work rules that were in effect at the time of the re‑discipline. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non‑Establishment of Recruitment Contract (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, breach of duty of obedience (reposting of recruitment notice), 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Level of Discipline (19 Instances of Tardiness and Early Leave)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to breach of duty of obedience (reposting of recruitment notice) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Breach of Duty of Obedience (Reposting of Recruitment Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
