Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Six-Month Suspension of Union Membership Rights)” (Unfair Dismissal 374)
- Date2026/04/15 04:04
- Read 173
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employees partially prevailed on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (six-month suspension of union membership rights).”
Adjudicating Body: Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9050 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.13 · Outcome: Partially Upheld
Summary of Key Issues: Although the employees fall within the definition of “employees” under the Labor Standards Act, the six-month suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) imposed on Employee 1, who is a union member, does not constitute a disposition that can be the subject of a remedy application.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, multiple employees filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission against their employer company. The Commission examined, in a consolidated manner, the employment status of the employees, the existence and gravity of the grounds for dismissal, and the validity of the six-month suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) imposed on one employee who was a union member.
The Commission first reviewed whether the employees in this case qualified as “employees” under the Labor Standards Act, then examined whether the dismissals and the suspension of union membership rights imposed on the union member each constituted dispositions subject to a remedy application before the Labor Relations Commission, and whether the dismissals were justified.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, even if the employer’s allegations of misconduct against employees who qualify as “employees” under the Labor Standards Act are true, such grounds alone are sufficient, under social norms, to warrant dismissal, and whether the dismissals constitute unfair dismissal where the level of discipline is markedly excessive compared to similar disciplinary precedents.
In addition, a separate issue arose as to whether the six-month disciplinary suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) imposed on one employee who was a union member falls within “dismissal, etc.”—a disposition that can be challenged before the Labor Relations Commission by way of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal or similar relief.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel found that the employees were subject to the employer’s direction and supervision and provided labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages, and that they were subject to the company’s rules of employment and personnel regulations. On this basis, the panel held that they qualified as “employees” under the Labor Standards Act.
With respect to the six-month suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) imposed on the employee who was a union member, the panel viewed this as a measure concerning internal restrictions on status within the labor union, rather than a dismissal that terminates the employment relationship or a suspension from duty that stops wage payment. Accordingly, it held that this measure did not fall within “dismissal, etc.” that can directly be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Even assuming, as alleged by the employer, that grounds for dismissal existed with respect to the employees, the panel found that the relevant facts were not sufficiently proven by objective materials and evidence. Moreover, even if some of the facts were to be accepted, it was difficult to conclude that the misconduct was so serious, under social norms, as to make continuation of the employment relationship impossible. Further, when compared with other disciplinary dispositions imposed for similar reasons within the same company, the dismissals in this case were excessively severe to the extent that they lost proportionality.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissals in this case exceeded the scope of discretion granted to the disciplinary authority and, as measures that are markedly unreasonable under social norms, were unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that even if all of the misconduct alleged by the employer is true, dismissal does not automatically become justified. For a dismissal to be lawful, not only must the grounds exist, but their gravity must be such that, under social norms, continuation of the employment relationship is impossible. It must also be examined whether proportionality is maintained in comparison with other disciplinary precedents within the company, and whether procedures and evidence are sufficient.
In addition, measures such as the suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) related to labor union activities may not be the direct subject of the Labor Relations Commission’s unfair dismissal remedy procedures. Therefore, you should consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& regarding the relationship with other legal avenues, including applications for remedy for unfair labor practices and civil/criminal litigation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when deciding on disciplinary dismissal, it is necessary to carefully review whether the factual circumstances underlying the grounds for dismissal can be sufficiently proven by objective materials and evidence, and whether the level of discipline is not excessive compared to past similar cases. In particular, although the determination of disciplinary severity falls within the discretion of the disciplinary authority, if the level is evaluated as markedly severe under social norms, the dismissal may be found to be unfair by the Labor Relations Commission. It is therefore necessary to consider and compare the possibility of other levels of discipline, such as warnings, wage reductions, or suspensions from duty.
Furthermore, even where measures concern the internal status of union members, such as the suspension of union membership rights (disqualification), depending on the circumstances they may give rise to other legal issues such as unfair labor practices. Accordingly, you should ensure the fairness of disciplinary procedures, provide clear notice of the grounds, and afford sufficient opportunities for explanation. If a dispute before the Labor Relations Commission arises, you should cooperate with professional institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& to establish a response strategy from the early stages of the case.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employees qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act; however, the six-month suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) imposed on Employee 1, who is a union member, does not constitute a disposition that can be the subject of a remedy application. Even if the grounds for dismissal against the employees are true, there is room for dispute as to whether such grounds alone warrant dismissal. The facts were not objectively proven, and even if they were accepted, the dismissals are deemed unfair because, when compared with disciplinary dispositions for similar reasons, they lack proportionality and the level of discipline is excessively severe.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The employees qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act; however, the six-month suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) imposed on Employee 1, who is a union member, does not constitute a disposition that can be the subject of a remedy application. Even if the grounds for dismissal against the employees are true, there is room for dispute as to whether such grounds alone warrant dismissal. The facts were not objectively proven, and even if they were accepted, the dismissals are deemed unfair because, when compared with disciplinary dispositions for similar reasons, they lack proportionality and the level of discipline is excessively severe. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (six-month suspension of union membership rights), 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.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Drunk Driving)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (six-month suspension of union membership rights) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Six-Month Suspension of Union Membership Rights)” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employees partially prevailed on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (six-month suspension of union membership rights).”
Adjudicating Body: Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9050 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.13 · Outcome: Partially Upheld
Summary of Key Issues: Although the employees fall within the definition of “employees” under the Labor Standards Act, the six-month suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) imposed on Employee 1, who is a union member, does not constitute a disposition that can be the subject of a remedy application.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, multiple employees filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission against their employer company. The Commission examined, in a consolidated manner, the employment status of the employees, the existence and gravity of the grounds for dismissal, and the validity of the six-month suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) imposed on one employee who was a union member.
The Commission first reviewed whether the employees in this case qualified as “employees” under the Labor Standards Act, then examined whether the dismissals and the suspension of union membership rights imposed on the union member each constituted dispositions subject to a remedy application before the Labor Relations Commission, and whether the dismissals were justified.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, even if the employer’s allegations of misconduct against employees who qualify as “employees” under the Labor Standards Act are true, such grounds alone are sufficient, under social norms, to warrant dismissal, and whether the dismissals constitute unfair dismissal where the level of discipline is markedly excessive compared to similar disciplinary precedents.
In addition, a separate issue arose as to whether the six-month disciplinary suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) imposed on one employee who was a union member falls within “dismissal, etc.”—a disposition that can be challenged before the Labor Relations Commission by way of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal or similar relief.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel found that the employees were subject to the employer’s direction and supervision and provided labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages, and that they were subject to the company’s rules of employment and personnel regulations. On this basis, the panel held that they qualified as “employees” under the Labor Standards Act.
With respect to the six-month suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) imposed on the employee who was a union member, the panel viewed this as a measure concerning internal restrictions on status within the labor union, rather than a dismissal that terminates the employment relationship or a suspension from duty that stops wage payment. Accordingly, it held that this measure did not fall within “dismissal, etc.” that can directly be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Even assuming, as alleged by the employer, that grounds for dismissal existed with respect to the employees, the panel found that the relevant facts were not sufficiently proven by objective materials and evidence. Moreover, even if some of the facts were to be accepted, it was difficult to conclude that the misconduct was so serious, under social norms, as to make continuation of the employment relationship impossible. Further, when compared with other disciplinary dispositions imposed for similar reasons within the same company, the dismissals in this case were excessively severe to the extent that they lost proportionality.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissals in this case exceeded the scope of discretion granted to the disciplinary authority and, as measures that are markedly unreasonable under social norms, were unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that even if all of the misconduct alleged by the employer is true, dismissal does not automatically become justified. For a dismissal to be lawful, not only must the grounds exist, but their gravity must be such that, under social norms, continuation of the employment relationship is impossible. It must also be examined whether proportionality is maintained in comparison with other disciplinary precedents within the company, and whether procedures and evidence are sufficient.
In addition, measures such as the suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) related to labor union activities may not be the direct subject of the Labor Relations Commission’s unfair dismissal remedy procedures. Therefore, you should consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& regarding the relationship with other legal avenues, including applications for remedy for unfair labor practices and civil/criminal litigation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when deciding on disciplinary dismissal, it is necessary to carefully review whether the factual circumstances underlying the grounds for dismissal can be sufficiently proven by objective materials and evidence, and whether the level of discipline is not excessive compared to past similar cases. In particular, although the determination of disciplinary severity falls within the discretion of the disciplinary authority, if the level is evaluated as markedly severe under social norms, the dismissal may be found to be unfair by the Labor Relations Commission. It is therefore necessary to consider and compare the possibility of other levels of discipline, such as warnings, wage reductions, or suspensions from duty.
Furthermore, even where measures concern the internal status of union members, such as the suspension of union membership rights (disqualification), depending on the circumstances they may give rise to other legal issues such as unfair labor practices. Accordingly, you should ensure the fairness of disciplinary procedures, provide clear notice of the grounds, and afford sufficient opportunities for explanation. If a dispute before the Labor Relations Commission arises, you should cooperate with professional institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& to establish a response strategy from the early stages of the case.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employees qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act; however, the six-month suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) imposed on Employee 1, who is a union member, does not constitute a disposition that can be the subject of a remedy application. Even if the grounds for dismissal against the employees are true, there is room for dispute as to whether such grounds alone warrant dismissal. The facts were not objectively proven, and even if they were accepted, the dismissals are deemed unfair because, when compared with disciplinary dispositions for similar reasons, they lack proportionality and the level of discipline is excessively severe.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The employees qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act; however, the six-month suspension of union membership rights (disqualification) imposed on Employee 1, who is a union member, does not constitute a disposition that can be the subject of a remedy application. Even if the grounds for dismissal against the employees are true, there is room for dispute as to whether such grounds alone warrant dismissal. The facts were not objectively proven, and even if they were accepted, the dismissals are deemed unfair because, when compared with disciplinary dispositions for similar reasons, they lack proportionality and the level of discipline is excessively severe. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (six-month suspension of union membership rights), 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.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Drunk Driving)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (six-month suspension of union membership rights) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Six-Month Suspension of Union Membership Rights)” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
