Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Disciplinary Severity (Abuse of Persons with Disabilities · Failure to Keep Counseling Records)” (Unfair Dismissal 442)
- Date2026/05/09 04:13
- Read 116
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (abuse of persons with disabilities · failure to keep counseling records).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026UnfairDismissal99 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.27 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s “abuse of persons with disabilities (physical and emotional abuse) (Ground for Discipline 1)” and “violation of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities due to failure to keep counseling records for residents of the facility (Ground for Discipline 2)” are found to violate Article 47(18) of the Rules of Employment and Article 17(4) and (9) of the Reward and Punishment Regulations, and therefore constitute just grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a social worker at a residential facility for persons with disabilities who was dismissed for disciplinary reasons on grounds including abuse of persons with disabilities and failure to keep counseling records. The employee applied to the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, the legality of the disciplinary procedures, and compliance with the written notice requirements for dismissal, and ultimately rejected the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal and found in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where abuse of persons with disabilities and failure to keep counseling records amounting to a violation of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities are recognized, whether the disciplinary dismissal of the social worker is justified in terms of grounds for discipline, procedure, and the level of discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee’s abusive conduct toward persons with disabilities had been “recognized” as abuse by a disability advocacy agency and that the court had rendered a judgment of suspension of sentence for a fine; that the failure to keep counseling records had been pointed out in a special audit by a higher-level authority and constituted long-term misconduct over a total period of 2 years and 8 months; that the relevant conduct was expressly stipulated as grounds for discipline in the Rules of Employment and the Reward and Punishment Regulations, which also provided for aggravated punishment for two instances of misconduct and specified mitigation as a matter of discretion; and that, given the nature of the social worker’s duties, there is a duty to protect and ensure the safety of persons with disabilities and a high level of ethics is required.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the dismissal in this case was based on recognized grounds for discipline, that the disciplinary procedures were conducted in accordance with the Reward and Punishment Regulations and the collective agreement, and that the notice of disciplinary outcome stated the date and time of dismissal and the reasons for dismissal, thereby satisfying the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did not constitute an abuse of discretion in which the level of discipline is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms, and therefore could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where misconduct directly related to core job duties—such as abuse of persons with disabilities or prolonged violations of statutes and internal regulations—is established, labor commissions may broadly recognize the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal. In particular, where there are multiple instances of misconduct and these are combined with external findings of abuse, criminal court outcomes, and audit findings, such factors may weigh heavily against the employee in assessing the level of discipline. It is therefore important, at an early stage, to secure as fully as possible both factual disputes and grounds for mitigation (such as remediation of harm, remorse, and efforts to prevent recurrence).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly stipulate in the Rules of Employment and Reward and Punishment Regulations the grounds for discipline, standards for the level of discipline, and factors for aggravation and mitigation, and to strictly comply with procedures such as convening the disciplinary committee, deliberation, and notification in accordance with the collective agreement and internal regulations. In particular, business establishments that care for vulnerable groups, such as social welfare facilities and medical institutions, should concretely set out provisions on prevention of abuse, compliance with record-keeping obligations, and ethical standards, and strengthen education and supervision. This will enable the employer, in the event of similar disputes, to persuasively demonstrate to the Labor Relations Commission the inevitability of discipline and its reasonableness in light of social norms.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s “abuse of persons with disabilities (physical and emotional abuse) (Ground for Discipline 1)” and “violation of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities due to failure to keep counseling records for residents of the facility (Ground for Discipline 2)” are found to violate Article 47(18) of the Rules of Employment and Article 17(4) and (9) of the Reward and Punishment Regulations, and therefore constitute just grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s conduct constituting “Ground for Discipline 1” was found by a disability advocacy agency to be abuse of persons with disabilities, and the court rendered a judgment of suspension of sentence for a fine; “Ground for Discipline 2” was pointed out in a special audit by a higher-level authority and constitutes long-term misconduct over a total period of 2 years and 8 months, leaving no room for mitigation; the facility’s Reward and Punishment Regulations and related rules specify that mitigation is discretionary and provide for aggravated punishment where there are two instances of misconduct; and, considering that as a social worker the employee had a duty to protect and ensure the safety of persons with disabilities and that the position requires a high level of ethics, it cannot be said that the discipline is so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the level of discipline is appropriate.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employer conducted the procedures in accordance with Article 22 of the Reward and Punishment Regulations and the collective agreement, and no other defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified. Therefore, the disciplinary procedures are lawful.
D. Compliance with written notice of dismissal
The notice of disciplinary outcome stated the date and time of dismissal and the reasons for dismissal, so the employer complied with the obligation of written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s “abuse of persons with disabilities (physical and emotional abuse) (Ground for Discipline 1)” and “violation of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities due to failure to keep counseling records for residents of the facility (Ground for Discipline 2)” are found to violate Article 47(18) of the Rules of Employment and Article 17(4) and (9) of the Reward and Punishment Regulations, and therefore constitute just grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s conduct constituting “Ground for Discipline 1” was found by a disability advocacy agency to be abuse of persons with disabilities, and the court rendered a judgment of suspension of sentence for a fine; “Ground for Discipline 2” was pointed out in a special audit by a higher-level authority and constitutes long-term misconduct over a total period of 2 years and 8 months, leaving no room for mitigation; the facility’s Reward and Punishment Regulations and related rules specify that mitigation is discretionary and provide for aggravated punishment where there are two instances of misconduct; and, considering that as a social worker the employee had a duty to protect and ensure the safety of persons with disabilities and that the position requires a high level of ethics, it cannot be said that the discipline is so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the level of discipline is appropriate.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employer conducted the procedures in accordance with Article 22 of the Reward and Punishment Regulations and the collective agreement, and no other defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified. Therefore, the disciplinary procedures are lawful.
D. Compliance with written notice of dismissal
The notice of disciplinary outcome stated the date and time of dismissal and the reasons for dismissal, so the employer complied with the obligation of written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Dismissal (Prostitution · Acceptance of Money and Valuables)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Recommended by Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (abuse of persons with disabilities · failure to keep counseling records), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Recommended by Telephone Call)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (abuse of persons with disabilities · failure to keep counseling records) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Abuse of Persons with Disabilities · Failure to Keep Counseling Records).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (abuse of persons with disabilities · failure to keep counseling records).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026UnfairDismissal99 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.27 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s “abuse of persons with disabilities (physical and emotional abuse) (Ground for Discipline 1)” and “violation of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities due to failure to keep counseling records for residents of the facility (Ground for Discipline 2)” are found to violate Article 47(18) of the Rules of Employment and Article 17(4) and (9) of the Reward and Punishment Regulations, and therefore constitute just grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a social worker at a residential facility for persons with disabilities who was dismissed for disciplinary reasons on grounds including abuse of persons with disabilities and failure to keep counseling records. The employee applied to the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, the legality of the disciplinary procedures, and compliance with the written notice requirements for dismissal, and ultimately rejected the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal and found in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where abuse of persons with disabilities and failure to keep counseling records amounting to a violation of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities are recognized, whether the disciplinary dismissal of the social worker is justified in terms of grounds for discipline, procedure, and the level of discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee’s abusive conduct toward persons with disabilities had been “recognized” as abuse by a disability advocacy agency and that the court had rendered a judgment of suspension of sentence for a fine; that the failure to keep counseling records had been pointed out in a special audit by a higher-level authority and constituted long-term misconduct over a total period of 2 years and 8 months; that the relevant conduct was expressly stipulated as grounds for discipline in the Rules of Employment and the Reward and Punishment Regulations, which also provided for aggravated punishment for two instances of misconduct and specified mitigation as a matter of discretion; and that, given the nature of the social worker’s duties, there is a duty to protect and ensure the safety of persons with disabilities and a high level of ethics is required.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the dismissal in this case was based on recognized grounds for discipline, that the disciplinary procedures were conducted in accordance with the Reward and Punishment Regulations and the collective agreement, and that the notice of disciplinary outcome stated the date and time of dismissal and the reasons for dismissal, thereby satisfying the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did not constitute an abuse of discretion in which the level of discipline is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms, and therefore could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where misconduct directly related to core job duties—such as abuse of persons with disabilities or prolonged violations of statutes and internal regulations—is established, labor commissions may broadly recognize the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal. In particular, where there are multiple instances of misconduct and these are combined with external findings of abuse, criminal court outcomes, and audit findings, such factors may weigh heavily against the employee in assessing the level of discipline. It is therefore important, at an early stage, to secure as fully as possible both factual disputes and grounds for mitigation (such as remediation of harm, remorse, and efforts to prevent recurrence).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly stipulate in the Rules of Employment and Reward and Punishment Regulations the grounds for discipline, standards for the level of discipline, and factors for aggravation and mitigation, and to strictly comply with procedures such as convening the disciplinary committee, deliberation, and notification in accordance with the collective agreement and internal regulations. In particular, business establishments that care for vulnerable groups, such as social welfare facilities and medical institutions, should concretely set out provisions on prevention of abuse, compliance with record-keeping obligations, and ethical standards, and strengthen education and supervision. This will enable the employer, in the event of similar disputes, to persuasively demonstrate to the Labor Relations Commission the inevitability of discipline and its reasonableness in light of social norms.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s “abuse of persons with disabilities (physical and emotional abuse) (Ground for Discipline 1)” and “violation of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities due to failure to keep counseling records for residents of the facility (Ground for Discipline 2)” are found to violate Article 47(18) of the Rules of Employment and Article 17(4) and (9) of the Reward and Punishment Regulations, and therefore constitute just grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s conduct constituting “Ground for Discipline 1” was found by a disability advocacy agency to be abuse of persons with disabilities, and the court rendered a judgment of suspension of sentence for a fine; “Ground for Discipline 2” was pointed out in a special audit by a higher-level authority and constitutes long-term misconduct over a total period of 2 years and 8 months, leaving no room for mitigation; the facility’s Reward and Punishment Regulations and related rules specify that mitigation is discretionary and provide for aggravated punishment where there are two instances of misconduct; and, considering that as a social worker the employee had a duty to protect and ensure the safety of persons with disabilities and that the position requires a high level of ethics, it cannot be said that the discipline is so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the level of discipline is appropriate.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employer conducted the procedures in accordance with Article 22 of the Reward and Punishment Regulations and the collective agreement, and no other defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified. Therefore, the disciplinary procedures are lawful.
D. Compliance with written notice of dismissal
The notice of disciplinary outcome stated the date and time of dismissal and the reasons for dismissal, so the employer complied with the obligation of written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s “abuse of persons with disabilities (physical and emotional abuse) (Ground for Discipline 1)” and “violation of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities due to failure to keep counseling records for residents of the facility (Ground for Discipline 2)” are found to violate Article 47(18) of the Rules of Employment and Article 17(4) and (9) of the Reward and Punishment Regulations, and therefore constitute just grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s conduct constituting “Ground for Discipline 1” was found by a disability advocacy agency to be abuse of persons with disabilities, and the court rendered a judgment of suspension of sentence for a fine; “Ground for Discipline 2” was pointed out in a special audit by a higher-level authority and constitutes long-term misconduct over a total period of 2 years and 8 months, leaving no room for mitigation; the facility’s Reward and Punishment Regulations and related rules specify that mitigation is discretionary and provide for aggravated punishment where there are two instances of misconduct; and, considering that as a social worker the employee had a duty to protect and ensure the safety of persons with disabilities and that the position requires a high level of ethics, it cannot be said that the discipline is so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the level of discipline is appropriate.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employer conducted the procedures in accordance with Article 22 of the Reward and Punishment Regulations and the collective agreement, and no other defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified. Therefore, the disciplinary procedures are lawful.
D. Compliance with written notice of dismissal
The notice of disciplinary outcome stated the date and time of dismissal and the reasons for dismissal, so the employer complied with the obligation of written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Dismissal (Prostitution · Acceptance of Money and Valuables)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Recommended by Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (abuse of persons with disabilities · failure to keep counseling records), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Recommended by Telephone Call)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (abuse of persons with disabilities · failure to keep counseling records) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Abuse of Persons with Disabilities · Failure to Keep Counseling Records).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
