Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Disciplinary Action for Industrial Action (No Unfair Labor Practice Recognized)” (Unfair Dismissal 363)
- Date2026/04/10 04:08
- Read 172
This case on the issue of “disciplinary action for industrial action (no unfair labor practice recognized)” ended with a full victory for the employee (full acceptance of the claim).
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10243 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.20 · Result: Full acceptance
Summary of key issues: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, during the course of industrial action by a labor union, the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on a union member, and the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The employee argued not only that the disciplinary action for participating in the industrial action itself was unjust, but also that it constituted an unfair labor practice targeting union activities. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined separately (i) whether grounds for discipline existed and (ii) whether the disciplinary action amounted to an unfair labor practice. Based on this unfair dismissal decision, this article organizes the Commission’s reasoning structure and practical implications from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When an employer imposes disciplinary dismissal on an employee for acts committed in the course of industrial action, (i) whether the means and methods of that industrial action exceeded the bounds of legitimacy so as to constitute grounds for discipline, and (ii) whether such disciplinary action constitutes an unfair labor practice targeting the labor union and its members.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case held that, considering the circumstances leading up to the industrial action, the nature of its means and methods, and its impact on workplace order, it was difficult to conclude that the employee’s industrial action clearly departed from the limits of legitimacy under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. It further found that the alleged misconduct relied upon by the employer as grounds for discipline, even if acknowledged, was not so serious, in light of social norms, as to require dismissal under the work rules; and that, given that the burden of proof regarding the existence of grounds for discipline and the appropriateness of the level of discipline lies with the employer, such burden had not been sufficiently discharged. Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case constituted unfair dismissal because the grounds for discipline were not established.
On the other hand, with respect to whether the disciplinary action constituted an unfair labor practice, the Commission found that the disciplinary measure appeared to be a sanction for the employee’s specific conduct, that there was insufficient additional evidence to infer an intention on the part of the employer to exclude or suppress the union, and that, although the burden of proving the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice lies with the employee or the union, it was difficult to definitively conclude that such intent existed. Taking these factors together, the Commission determined that the disciplinary action in this case could not be regarded as an unfair labor practice in the form of discriminatory treatment.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even when participating in industrial action, it is important for the union to exercise prior internal control over the means and methods used, and to keep records, so that they do not clearly lose legitimacy by involving violence, serious obstruction of business, or similar conduct. At the same time, if the employer imposes discipline on the grounds of industrial action, the employee should specifically contest (i) which provisions of the work rules or collective agreement the alleged grounds for discipline fall under, (ii) whether the conduct is, in light of social norms, serious enough to warrant dismissal, and (iii) whether the disciplinary procedures were lawfully conducted. In addition, to successfully argue that the disciplinary action constitutes an unfair labor practice, it is not sufficient merely to show that the person disciplined was a union member. It is necessary to systematically collect and submit objective materials—such as emails, minutes of meetings, and statements—that allow an inference of a discriminatory or exclusionary intent targeting union activities.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when imposing discipline for conduct that occurred during industrial action, it is necessary to clearly organize (i) how the conduct in question clearly exceeded the legitimate scope of the right to strike, and (ii) how it falls under specific grounds for discipline under the work rules. On the premise that the employer bears the burden of proof regarding the existence of grounds for discipline, the fairness of the disciplinary procedures, and the appropriateness of the level of discipline, the employer should prepare investigation reports, evidentiary materials, minutes of the disciplinary committee, and similar documentation, and also review consistency with the treatment of other union members who participated in the industrial action. Furthermore, to avoid having the disciplinary action misunderstood as an unfair labor practice, the employer should refrain, in overall labor-management relations, from discriminatory remarks or measures targeting any particular union or union member, and should clearly separate and document the grounds for discipline from union activities.
2. Matters Adjudicated
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Since it is difficult to view the means and methods of the industrial action as having lost legitimacy, it was improper for the employer to treat such conduct as grounds for discipline.
(b) Whether the Disciplinary Action Constitutes an Unfair Labor Practice
The disciplinary measure appears to be a response to the employee’s conduct, and there is no basis to conclude that it originated from the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice; therefore, it cannot be regarded as an unfair labor practice in the form of discriminatory treatment.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Since it is difficult to view the means and methods of the industrial action as having lost legitimacy, it was improper for the employer to treat such conduct as grounds for discipline.
(b) Whether the Disciplinary Action Constitutes an Unfair Labor Practice
The disciplinary measure appears to be a response to the employee’s conduct, and there is no basis to conclude that it originated from the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice; therefore, it cannot be regarded as an unfair labor practice in the form of discriminatory treatment. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year One-Off Fixed-Term Employee)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary action for industrial action (no unfair labor practice recognized), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year One-Off Fixed-Term Employee)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary action for industrial action (no unfair labor practice recognized) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Action for Industrial Action (No Unfair Labor Practice Recognized).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10243 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.20 · Result: Full acceptance
Summary of key issues: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, during the course of industrial action by a labor union, the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on a union member, and the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The employee argued not only that the disciplinary action for participating in the industrial action itself was unjust, but also that it constituted an unfair labor practice targeting union activities. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined separately (i) whether grounds for discipline existed and (ii) whether the disciplinary action amounted to an unfair labor practice. Based on this unfair dismissal decision, this article organizes the Commission’s reasoning structure and practical implications from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When an employer imposes disciplinary dismissal on an employee for acts committed in the course of industrial action, (i) whether the means and methods of that industrial action exceeded the bounds of legitimacy so as to constitute grounds for discipline, and (ii) whether such disciplinary action constitutes an unfair labor practice targeting the labor union and its members.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case held that, considering the circumstances leading up to the industrial action, the nature of its means and methods, and its impact on workplace order, it was difficult to conclude that the employee’s industrial action clearly departed from the limits of legitimacy under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. It further found that the alleged misconduct relied upon by the employer as grounds for discipline, even if acknowledged, was not so serious, in light of social norms, as to require dismissal under the work rules; and that, given that the burden of proof regarding the existence of grounds for discipline and the appropriateness of the level of discipline lies with the employer, such burden had not been sufficiently discharged. Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case constituted unfair dismissal because the grounds for discipline were not established.
On the other hand, with respect to whether the disciplinary action constituted an unfair labor practice, the Commission found that the disciplinary measure appeared to be a sanction for the employee’s specific conduct, that there was insufficient additional evidence to infer an intention on the part of the employer to exclude or suppress the union, and that, although the burden of proving the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice lies with the employee or the union, it was difficult to definitively conclude that such intent existed. Taking these factors together, the Commission determined that the disciplinary action in this case could not be regarded as an unfair labor practice in the form of discriminatory treatment.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even when participating in industrial action, it is important for the union to exercise prior internal control over the means and methods used, and to keep records, so that they do not clearly lose legitimacy by involving violence, serious obstruction of business, or similar conduct. At the same time, if the employer imposes discipline on the grounds of industrial action, the employee should specifically contest (i) which provisions of the work rules or collective agreement the alleged grounds for discipline fall under, (ii) whether the conduct is, in light of social norms, serious enough to warrant dismissal, and (iii) whether the disciplinary procedures were lawfully conducted. In addition, to successfully argue that the disciplinary action constitutes an unfair labor practice, it is not sufficient merely to show that the person disciplined was a union member. It is necessary to systematically collect and submit objective materials—such as emails, minutes of meetings, and statements—that allow an inference of a discriminatory or exclusionary intent targeting union activities.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when imposing discipline for conduct that occurred during industrial action, it is necessary to clearly organize (i) how the conduct in question clearly exceeded the legitimate scope of the right to strike, and (ii) how it falls under specific grounds for discipline under the work rules. On the premise that the employer bears the burden of proof regarding the existence of grounds for discipline, the fairness of the disciplinary procedures, and the appropriateness of the level of discipline, the employer should prepare investigation reports, evidentiary materials, minutes of the disciplinary committee, and similar documentation, and also review consistency with the treatment of other union members who participated in the industrial action. Furthermore, to avoid having the disciplinary action misunderstood as an unfair labor practice, the employer should refrain, in overall labor-management relations, from discriminatory remarks or measures targeting any particular union or union member, and should clearly separate and document the grounds for discipline from union activities.
2. Matters Adjudicated
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Since it is difficult to view the means and methods of the industrial action as having lost legitimacy, it was improper for the employer to treat such conduct as grounds for discipline.
(b) Whether the Disciplinary Action Constitutes an Unfair Labor Practice
The disciplinary measure appears to be a response to the employee’s conduct, and there is no basis to conclude that it originated from the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice; therefore, it cannot be regarded as an unfair labor practice in the form of discriminatory treatment.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Since it is difficult to view the means and methods of the industrial action as having lost legitimacy, it was improper for the employer to treat such conduct as grounds for discipline.
(b) Whether the Disciplinary Action Constitutes an Unfair Labor Practice
The disciplinary measure appears to be a response to the employee’s conduct, and there is no basis to conclude that it originated from the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice; therefore, it cannot be regarded as an unfair labor practice in the form of discriminatory treatment. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year One-Off Fixed-Term Employee)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary action for industrial action (no unfair labor practice recognized), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year One-Off Fixed-Term Employee)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary action for industrial action (no unfair labor practice recognized) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Action for Industrial Action (No Unfair Labor Practice Recognized).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
