Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Failure to Prepare Trial Production Reports)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 418)
- Date2026/04/30 04:14
- Read 139
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (failure to prepare trial production reports).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae88 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.04.09 · Outcome: Fully Upheld (Employee’s Claim Accepted in Full)
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline: Among the acts cited by the employer as grounds for discipline, the partial failure to prepare trial production reports in 2024–2025 was recognized as a valid ground for discipline. However, the remaining allegations—refusal to comply with instructions to change the quality control process, unauthorized absence and early departure, disruption of workplace order, and threats against colleagues—were not accepted as grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer dismissed the employee on the grounds of partial failure to prepare trial production reports, refusal to comply with instructions to change the quality control process, unauthorized absence and early departure, disruption of workplace order, and threats against colleagues. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission.
Based on the submitted materials and the parties’ statements, the Labor Relations Commission examined separately (i) whether each ground for discipline was established, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the legality of the disciplinary procedure, and ultimately determined that the dismissal in this case constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are:
(1) whether dismissal, as a severe disciplinary measure, is socially acceptable and appropriate in terms of the level of discipline where, among multiple alleged grounds, only the partial failure to prepare trial production reports is actually established; and
(2) whether the disciplinary procedure is lawful where the employee appeared before the disciplinary committee to present explanations and received a written notice of dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that, among the grounds for discipline asserted by the employer, the fact of partial failure to prepare trial production reports in 2024–2025 could be recognized as a ground for discipline. However, it held that the alleged refusal to comply with instructions to change the quality control process, unauthorized absence and early departure, disruption of workplace order, and threats against colleagues could not readily be regarded as grounds for discipline due to insufficient proof and other reasons. It further found that, in circumstances where only some of the alleged grounds are established, it is difficult to conclude that the employee bears such serious fault as to render continuation of the employment relationship impossible.
Accordingly, although some grounds for discipline were recognized, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case, as a severe disciplinary measure, was markedly excessive by social standards, amounted to an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority, and that the level of discipline was improper.
On the other hand, considering that the employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and presented explanations, and that the employer delivered a written notice specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal, the Commission found that the disciplinary procedure itself satisfied the basic requirements under the Labor Standards Act and the company’s work rules, and thus there was no procedural defect.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that, even if the employer lists numerous alleged acts of misconduct, the Labor Relations Commission will assess the appropriateness of the level of discipline based only on the grounds that are actually proven. Even where some degree of fault is acknowledged—such as partial failure to prepare trial production reports—it is still possible to contest whether such conduct, in light of its nature, degree, frequency, and impact on workplace order, justifies dismissal. It is therefore crucial, when appearing before the disciplinary committee, to provide sufficient explanations regarding the facts and circumstances.
In addition, the notice of dismissal must specify the grounds and effective date of dismissal in concrete terms. Upon receiving the notice, employees should carefully check whether the stated grounds are overly broad or inconsistent with the facts. When preparing an application for remedy to the Labor Relations Commission, employees should organize the case by distinguishing their own fault from any exaggeration or distortion by the employer.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, given that disciplinary dismissal is the most severe sanction for violations of corporate order by employees, it is necessary to carefully and comprehensively review the nature and degree of the misconduct, the employee’s past personnel record, and the possibility of improvement, and to prudently consider whether the intended purpose can be achieved through less severe measures such as pay reduction or suspension. Even if multiple grounds are cited at once to support a dismissal, if only some of them are ultimately proven, the justification for dismissal can easily be denied. It is therefore essential to systematically secure evidentiary materials for each alleged ground for discipline.
Furthermore, employers must strictly comply with procedural requirements such as convening the disciplinary committee, providing prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, and issuing written notice specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal. Only by doing so can employers reduce the risk that, in addition to a finding of unfair dismissal due to excessive level of discipline, there will also be findings of procedural violations. It is advisable to seek advice from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& to preemptively refine internal disciplinary regulations and standards for determining the level of discipline, thereby preventing disputes.
This unfair dismissal decision by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission reaffirms that the Commission examines in stages (i) whether grounds for discipline exist, (ii) the legality of the disciplinary procedure, and (iii) the balance and proportionality of the level of discipline, and that it scrutinizes particularly strictly whether the employer has abused its discretion in setting the level of discipline. Both employees and employers seeking to prevent unfair dismissal disputes should, on the premise that disciplinary dismissal is a “last resort,” carefully review the facts and applicable legal principles.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Among the acts cited by the employer as grounds for discipline, the partial failure to prepare trial production reports in 2024–2025 is recognized as a ground for discipline. However, the remaining allegations—refusal to comply with instructions to change the quality control process, unauthorized absence and early departure, disruption of workplace order, and threats against colleagues—are difficult to recognize as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
It is difficult to conclude, based solely on the single ground for discipline that is recognized, that the employee bears serious fault, and the imposition of dismissal, a severe disciplinary measure, is considered excessive in terms of the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
The employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and presented explanations, and received from the employer a written notice specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal. Therefore, it is determined that there is no defect in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Among the acts cited by the employer as grounds for discipline, the partial failure to prepare trial production reports in 2024–2025 is recognized as a ground for discipline. However, the remaining allegations—refusal to comply with instructions to change the quality control process, unauthorized absence and early departure, disruption of workplace order, and threats against colleagues—are difficult to recognize as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
It is difficult to conclude, based solely on the single ground for discipline that is recognized, that the employee bears serious fault, and the imposition of dismissal, a severe disciplinary measure, is considered excessive in terms of the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
The employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and presented explanations, and received from the employer a written notice specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal. Therefore, it is determined that there is no defect in the disciplinary procedure. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Exception to Fixed-Term Rules (Demonstration Plant)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (failure to prepare trial production reports), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, unauthorized absence, 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&.
※ The previous article, “‘Employee Status (Fitness Instructor Commission Agreement)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (failure to prepare trial production reports) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Failure to Prepare Trial Production Reports).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (failure to prepare trial production reports).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae88 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.04.09 · Outcome: Fully Upheld (Employee’s Claim Accepted in Full)
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline: Among the acts cited by the employer as grounds for discipline, the partial failure to prepare trial production reports in 2024–2025 was recognized as a valid ground for discipline. However, the remaining allegations—refusal to comply with instructions to change the quality control process, unauthorized absence and early departure, disruption of workplace order, and threats against colleagues—were not accepted as grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer dismissed the employee on the grounds of partial failure to prepare trial production reports, refusal to comply with instructions to change the quality control process, unauthorized absence and early departure, disruption of workplace order, and threats against colleagues. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission.
Based on the submitted materials and the parties’ statements, the Labor Relations Commission examined separately (i) whether each ground for discipline was established, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the legality of the disciplinary procedure, and ultimately determined that the dismissal in this case constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are:
(1) whether dismissal, as a severe disciplinary measure, is socially acceptable and appropriate in terms of the level of discipline where, among multiple alleged grounds, only the partial failure to prepare trial production reports is actually established; and
(2) whether the disciplinary procedure is lawful where the employee appeared before the disciplinary committee to present explanations and received a written notice of dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that, among the grounds for discipline asserted by the employer, the fact of partial failure to prepare trial production reports in 2024–2025 could be recognized as a ground for discipline. However, it held that the alleged refusal to comply with instructions to change the quality control process, unauthorized absence and early departure, disruption of workplace order, and threats against colleagues could not readily be regarded as grounds for discipline due to insufficient proof and other reasons. It further found that, in circumstances where only some of the alleged grounds are established, it is difficult to conclude that the employee bears such serious fault as to render continuation of the employment relationship impossible.
Accordingly, although some grounds for discipline were recognized, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case, as a severe disciplinary measure, was markedly excessive by social standards, amounted to an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority, and that the level of discipline was improper.
On the other hand, considering that the employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and presented explanations, and that the employer delivered a written notice specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal, the Commission found that the disciplinary procedure itself satisfied the basic requirements under the Labor Standards Act and the company’s work rules, and thus there was no procedural defect.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that, even if the employer lists numerous alleged acts of misconduct, the Labor Relations Commission will assess the appropriateness of the level of discipline based only on the grounds that are actually proven. Even where some degree of fault is acknowledged—such as partial failure to prepare trial production reports—it is still possible to contest whether such conduct, in light of its nature, degree, frequency, and impact on workplace order, justifies dismissal. It is therefore crucial, when appearing before the disciplinary committee, to provide sufficient explanations regarding the facts and circumstances.
In addition, the notice of dismissal must specify the grounds and effective date of dismissal in concrete terms. Upon receiving the notice, employees should carefully check whether the stated grounds are overly broad or inconsistent with the facts. When preparing an application for remedy to the Labor Relations Commission, employees should organize the case by distinguishing their own fault from any exaggeration or distortion by the employer.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, given that disciplinary dismissal is the most severe sanction for violations of corporate order by employees, it is necessary to carefully and comprehensively review the nature and degree of the misconduct, the employee’s past personnel record, and the possibility of improvement, and to prudently consider whether the intended purpose can be achieved through less severe measures such as pay reduction or suspension. Even if multiple grounds are cited at once to support a dismissal, if only some of them are ultimately proven, the justification for dismissal can easily be denied. It is therefore essential to systematically secure evidentiary materials for each alleged ground for discipline.
Furthermore, employers must strictly comply with procedural requirements such as convening the disciplinary committee, providing prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, and issuing written notice specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal. Only by doing so can employers reduce the risk that, in addition to a finding of unfair dismissal due to excessive level of discipline, there will also be findings of procedural violations. It is advisable to seek advice from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& to preemptively refine internal disciplinary regulations and standards for determining the level of discipline, thereby preventing disputes.
This unfair dismissal decision by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission reaffirms that the Commission examines in stages (i) whether grounds for discipline exist, (ii) the legality of the disciplinary procedure, and (iii) the balance and proportionality of the level of discipline, and that it scrutinizes particularly strictly whether the employer has abused its discretion in setting the level of discipline. Both employees and employers seeking to prevent unfair dismissal disputes should, on the premise that disciplinary dismissal is a “last resort,” carefully review the facts and applicable legal principles.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Among the acts cited by the employer as grounds for discipline, the partial failure to prepare trial production reports in 2024–2025 is recognized as a ground for discipline. However, the remaining allegations—refusal to comply with instructions to change the quality control process, unauthorized absence and early departure, disruption of workplace order, and threats against colleagues—are difficult to recognize as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
It is difficult to conclude, based solely on the single ground for discipline that is recognized, that the employee bears serious fault, and the imposition of dismissal, a severe disciplinary measure, is considered excessive in terms of the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
The employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and presented explanations, and received from the employer a written notice specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal. Therefore, it is determined that there is no defect in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Among the acts cited by the employer as grounds for discipline, the partial failure to prepare trial production reports in 2024–2025 is recognized as a ground for discipline. However, the remaining allegations—refusal to comply with instructions to change the quality control process, unauthorized absence and early departure, disruption of workplace order, and threats against colleagues—are difficult to recognize as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
It is difficult to conclude, based solely on the single ground for discipline that is recognized, that the employee bears serious fault, and the imposition of dismissal, a severe disciplinary measure, is considered excessive in terms of the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
The employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and presented explanations, and received from the employer a written notice specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal. Therefore, it is determined that there is no defect in the disciplinary procedure. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Exception to Fixed-Term Rules (Demonstration Plant)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (failure to prepare trial production reports), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, unauthorized absence, 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&.
※ The previous article, “‘Employee Status (Fitness Instructor Commission Agreement)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (failure to prepare trial production reports) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Failure to Prepare Trial Production Reports).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
