Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Burden of Proof and Fairness (Bus Driver Traffic Accidents and Embezzlement Suspicion)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 383)
- Date2026/04/19 04:04
- Read 170
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issues of “burden of proof and fairness (bus driver traffic accidents and embezzlement suspicion).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1151 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: As to the first ground for discipline (embezzlement), the matter was still under investigation by the criminal authorities and the existence of a violation had not been determined. Even if the submitted evidence materials suggested somewhat suspicious circumstances, they were insufficient to establish that embezzlement had in fact occurred. As to the second ground for discipline (frequent traffic accidents), there was no clear normative rule that could serve as a basis for treating this as a ground for discipline, and no disciplinary action had been taken against other drivers (Song ○‑baek, Ko ○‑seop) who had the same number of traffic accidents as the employee in this case…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who appears to have been a bus driver was dismissed by the company on the grounds of embezzlement and frequent traffic accidents. The employee applied for a remedy for unfair dismissal, and the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision fully upholding the employee’s claim. The Labor Relations Commission found that neither the first ground for discipline (embezzlement) nor the second ground for discipline (frequent traffic accidents) could readily be recognized as valid grounds for discipline, and therefore held that the dismissal itself constituted unfair dismissal. Accordingly, it found no need to separately examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the disciplinary procedures.
In this article, based on the reasoning of the Labor Relations Commission’s decision, we整理 the legal implications that may be helpful in responding to similar cases, together with the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether it is justifiable to proceed all the way to dismissal, without clear rules and a fair disciplinary practice, based solely on (i) suspicion of embezzlement that is still under criminal investigation and (ii) the fact of frequent traffic accidents.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
With respect to the first ground for discipline, embezzlement, the panel held that the employer’s allegation could not readily be accepted as a valid ground for discipline, in light of the fact that the case was still under investigation by the criminal authorities and the existence of a violation had not been determined, and that, although the submitted materials suggested somewhat suspicious circumstances, they did not rise to the level of proving that embezzlement had actually occurred.
With respect to the second ground for discipline, frequent traffic accidents, the panel noted that there were no clear rules in the work rules, internal regulations, or similar normative provisions that could serve as a basis for treating this as a ground for discipline. It also noted that no disciplinary action had been taken against other drivers who had the same number of traffic accidents as the employee in this case, and therefore it was difficult to find that there was any established past practice of disciplining “employees with frequent traffic accidents.” In light of this, the panel found that the disciplinary measures in this case could not be regarded as having been administered in a fair and even‑handed manner.
The panel held that, in light of the above circumstances, the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as based on fault so serious that, under social norms, the employment relationship could no longer be maintained, and that the grounds for discipline themselves were difficult to recognize. It therefore concluded that the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that the mere fact that a criminal complaint has been filed or a criminal investigation is underway does not automatically justify summary dismissal. For a matter to constitute a ground for discipline, the employer must prove the specific facts, and it must be examined (i) whether those facts fall within the grounds for discipline set out in the work rules or internal regulations, and (ii) whether the discipline is being imposed in a manner that is fair in comparison with other employees.
In particular, in cases such as traffic accidents, which involve risks inherent in driving duties, it is important to actively argue and prove before the Labor Relations Commission that dismissal is excessive, by comprehensively examining the circumstances of the accident, the degree of fault, whether prior safety training was provided, and past disciplinary practices.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when considering disciplinary dismissal on serious grounds such as embezzlement or frequent traffic accidents, it is first necessary to check (i) whether such grounds have been clearly stipulated as grounds for discipline in the work rules or personnel regulations, and (ii) whether there has been a consistent practice in terms of how discipline has actually been imposed in the past.
In addition, with respect to matters that are the subject of a criminal complaint or ongoing criminal investigation, rather than proceeding to dismissal based merely on a level of “suspicion,” the employer should carefully review whether, in light of objective evidence, the status of the investigation, and the employee’s explanations, the allegations have been proven to a level that would be considered reasonable under social norms. The employer should also manage the matter so as to prevent fairness issues from arising, by comparing the level of discipline with that imposed on other employees who have experienced similar incidents.
To prevent this type of unfair dismissal dispute, it is advisable to work with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to codify in advance the rules on grounds for discipline, standards for managing traffic accidents involving driving staff, and standards for determining the level of discipline.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
As to the first ground for discipline, embezzlement, the matter is still under investigation by the criminal authorities and the existence of a violation has not been determined. Even if the submitted evidence materials suggest somewhat suspicious circumstances, they are insufficient to conclude that the existence of embezzlement has been proven. As to the second ground for discipline, frequent traffic accidents, there is no clear normative rule that can serve as a basis for treating this as a ground for discipline, and no disciplinary action has been taken against other drivers (Song ○‑baek, Ko ○‑seop) who had the same number of traffic accidents as the employee in this case. In light of the fact that no past practice of disciplining employees with frequent traffic accidents has been established, it is difficult to affirm the existence of such a practice. Accordingly, the dismissal is unfair, and there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the propriety of the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
As to the first ground for discipline, embezzlement, the matter is still under investigation by the criminal authorities and the existence of a violation has not been determined. Even if the submitted evidence materials suggest somewhat suspicious circumstances, they are insufficient to conclude that the existence of embezzlement has been proven. As to the second ground for discipline, frequent traffic accidents, there is no clear normative rule that can serve as a basis for treating this as a ground for discipline, and no disciplinary action has been taken against other drivers (Song ○‑baek, Ko ○‑seop) who had the same number of traffic accidents as the employee in this case. In light of the fact that no past practice of disciplining employees with frequent traffic accidents has been established, it is difficult to affirm the existence of such a practice. Accordingly, the dismissal is unfair, and there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the propriety of the disciplinary procedures. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Non‑Fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, burden of proof and fairness (bus driver traffic accidents and embezzlement suspicion), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy and non‑compliance with work instructions, others, 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 Decision Relating to Disciplinary Eligibility (Obstruction of Bus Operation),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to burden of proof and fairness (bus driver traffic accidents and embezzlement suspicion) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Burden of Proof and Fairness (Bus Driver Traffic Accidents and Embezzlement Suspicion).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issues of “burden of proof and fairness (bus driver traffic accidents and embezzlement suspicion).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1151 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: As to the first ground for discipline (embezzlement), the matter was still under investigation by the criminal authorities and the existence of a violation had not been determined. Even if the submitted evidence materials suggested somewhat suspicious circumstances, they were insufficient to establish that embezzlement had in fact occurred. As to the second ground for discipline (frequent traffic accidents), there was no clear normative rule that could serve as a basis for treating this as a ground for discipline, and no disciplinary action had been taken against other drivers (Song ○‑baek, Ko ○‑seop) who had the same number of traffic accidents as the employee in this case…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who appears to have been a bus driver was dismissed by the company on the grounds of embezzlement and frequent traffic accidents. The employee applied for a remedy for unfair dismissal, and the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision fully upholding the employee’s claim. The Labor Relations Commission found that neither the first ground for discipline (embezzlement) nor the second ground for discipline (frequent traffic accidents) could readily be recognized as valid grounds for discipline, and therefore held that the dismissal itself constituted unfair dismissal. Accordingly, it found no need to separately examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the disciplinary procedures.
In this article, based on the reasoning of the Labor Relations Commission’s decision, we整理 the legal implications that may be helpful in responding to similar cases, together with the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether it is justifiable to proceed all the way to dismissal, without clear rules and a fair disciplinary practice, based solely on (i) suspicion of embezzlement that is still under criminal investigation and (ii) the fact of frequent traffic accidents.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
With respect to the first ground for discipline, embezzlement, the panel held that the employer’s allegation could not readily be accepted as a valid ground for discipline, in light of the fact that the case was still under investigation by the criminal authorities and the existence of a violation had not been determined, and that, although the submitted materials suggested somewhat suspicious circumstances, they did not rise to the level of proving that embezzlement had actually occurred.
With respect to the second ground for discipline, frequent traffic accidents, the panel noted that there were no clear rules in the work rules, internal regulations, or similar normative provisions that could serve as a basis for treating this as a ground for discipline. It also noted that no disciplinary action had been taken against other drivers who had the same number of traffic accidents as the employee in this case, and therefore it was difficult to find that there was any established past practice of disciplining “employees with frequent traffic accidents.” In light of this, the panel found that the disciplinary measures in this case could not be regarded as having been administered in a fair and even‑handed manner.
The panel held that, in light of the above circumstances, the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as based on fault so serious that, under social norms, the employment relationship could no longer be maintained, and that the grounds for discipline themselves were difficult to recognize. It therefore concluded that the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that the mere fact that a criminal complaint has been filed or a criminal investigation is underway does not automatically justify summary dismissal. For a matter to constitute a ground for discipline, the employer must prove the specific facts, and it must be examined (i) whether those facts fall within the grounds for discipline set out in the work rules or internal regulations, and (ii) whether the discipline is being imposed in a manner that is fair in comparison with other employees.
In particular, in cases such as traffic accidents, which involve risks inherent in driving duties, it is important to actively argue and prove before the Labor Relations Commission that dismissal is excessive, by comprehensively examining the circumstances of the accident, the degree of fault, whether prior safety training was provided, and past disciplinary practices.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when considering disciplinary dismissal on serious grounds such as embezzlement or frequent traffic accidents, it is first necessary to check (i) whether such grounds have been clearly stipulated as grounds for discipline in the work rules or personnel regulations, and (ii) whether there has been a consistent practice in terms of how discipline has actually been imposed in the past.
In addition, with respect to matters that are the subject of a criminal complaint or ongoing criminal investigation, rather than proceeding to dismissal based merely on a level of “suspicion,” the employer should carefully review whether, in light of objective evidence, the status of the investigation, and the employee’s explanations, the allegations have been proven to a level that would be considered reasonable under social norms. The employer should also manage the matter so as to prevent fairness issues from arising, by comparing the level of discipline with that imposed on other employees who have experienced similar incidents.
To prevent this type of unfair dismissal dispute, it is advisable to work with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to codify in advance the rules on grounds for discipline, standards for managing traffic accidents involving driving staff, and standards for determining the level of discipline.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
As to the first ground for discipline, embezzlement, the matter is still under investigation by the criminal authorities and the existence of a violation has not been determined. Even if the submitted evidence materials suggest somewhat suspicious circumstances, they are insufficient to conclude that the existence of embezzlement has been proven. As to the second ground for discipline, frequent traffic accidents, there is no clear normative rule that can serve as a basis for treating this as a ground for discipline, and no disciplinary action has been taken against other drivers (Song ○‑baek, Ko ○‑seop) who had the same number of traffic accidents as the employee in this case. In light of the fact that no past practice of disciplining employees with frequent traffic accidents has been established, it is difficult to affirm the existence of such a practice. Accordingly, the dismissal is unfair, and there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the propriety of the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
As to the first ground for discipline, embezzlement, the matter is still under investigation by the criminal authorities and the existence of a violation has not been determined. Even if the submitted evidence materials suggest somewhat suspicious circumstances, they are insufficient to conclude that the existence of embezzlement has been proven. As to the second ground for discipline, frequent traffic accidents, there is no clear normative rule that can serve as a basis for treating this as a ground for discipline, and no disciplinary action has been taken against other drivers (Song ○‑baek, Ko ○‑seop) who had the same number of traffic accidents as the employee in this case. In light of the fact that no past practice of disciplining employees with frequent traffic accidents has been established, it is difficult to affirm the existence of such a practice. Accordingly, the dismissal is unfair, and there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the propriety of the disciplinary procedures. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Non‑Fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, burden of proof and fairness (bus driver traffic accidents and embezzlement suspicion), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy and non‑compliance with work instructions, others, 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 Decision Relating to Disciplinary Eligibility (Obstruction of Bus Operation),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to burden of proof and fairness (bus driver traffic accidents and embezzlement suspicion) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Burden of Proof and Fairness (Bus Driver Traffic Accidents and Embezzlement Suspicion).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
