Corporate trends / Performance record
Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Disciplinary Severity (Non‑Compliance with Daily Contractual Working Hours)” (Unfair Dismissal 454)
- Date2026/05/15 04:12
- Read 102
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026UnfairDismissal107 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.25 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of “non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours” was found to violate Articles 19, 20, and 27 of the Rules of Employment and therefore constituted just cause for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working at Gwangyang Port, designated as a Class 1 national security facility, was dismissed for disciplinary reasons on the ground that he failed to comply with his daily contractual working hours. Claiming that the dismissal was unfair, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether there had been a violation of the Rules of Employment, whether the level of discipline (disciplinary severity) was appropriate, and whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employee repeatedly violated the daily contractual working hours, the disciplinary dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and whether there were any serious defects in the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employee’s “non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours” violated the working‑hours provisions of the Rules of Employment and therefore constituted grounds for discipline; that the employee damaged the trust relationship between labor and management by continuing to work only 4.5 to 5 hours per day even after receiving two separate notices from the on‑site team leader to comply with working hours; and that, given the special nature of Gwangyang Port as a Class 1 national security facility and a high‑risk site in terms of security and safety, strict management of neglect of duty and non‑compliance with working hours is required.
The Commission further held that there was no objective evidence to support the employee’s allegations of a “practice of non‑compliance with working hours” and the employer’s alleged neglect of its management responsibility; that even if some practice had existed, a practice contrary to laws and the Rules of Employment does not by itself exempt an employee from responsibility; that the level of discipline could not be regarded as having clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms; and that the disciplinary procedures followed the Rules of Employment and no particular defects were identified.
On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did not constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority in terms of grounds for discipline, disciplinary severity, or procedure, and therefore could not be regarded as unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that the obligation to comply with working hours is not a mere “formality” but is directly connected to grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment. In particular, at workplaces directly related to security and safety, repeated non‑compliance with working hours and continued violations even after repeated warnings from superiors are highly likely to be recognized by the Labor Relations Commission as just grounds for discipline or dismissal.
It is also difficult to prove the existence of a practice solely by asserting that “everyone has always done it that way” or “the manager condoned it,” and even if some practice is acknowledged, responsibility for violating laws and the Rules of Employment is not thereby exempted. When preparing for an unfair dismissal remedy, it is important to preserve objective evidence—such as emails, messenger records, and attendance records—regarding the actual working patterns, the employer’s instructions, and any practices or circumstances of acquiescence.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to clearly stipulate in the Rules of Employment the working‑time provisions, including contractual working hours, rest periods, and shift‑change times, and to manage attendance on site in accordance with those standards. Especially at workplaces with high levels of risk and security, such as Class 1 national security facilities, employers should clearly announce in advance the standards and principles for disciplinary severity regarding violations of working hours and work attitude, and, in the event of repeated violations, take step‑by‑step measures such as warnings, cautions, and reprimands, while keeping proper records.
Furthermore, when imposing severe disciplinary measures, including disciplinary dismissal, it is important to strictly comply with the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the Labor Standards Act and the Rules of Employment (such as convening a disciplinary committee, providing an opportunity for explanation, and the method of resolution and notification), in order to preempt disputes over procedural defects. By consulting with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and refining these aspects in advance, employers can enhance their ability to defend themselves in future unfair dismissal disputes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s act of “non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours” is deemed to violate Articles 19, 20, and 27 of the Rules of Employment and therefore constitutes just cause for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of Disciplinary Severity
The employee’s non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours (working 4.5 to 5 hours) was confirmed as fact and thereby undermined the trust relationship between labor and management; the employee continued to habitually shorten or adjust his working hours and persist in non‑compliance even after receiving two notices from the on‑site team leader to comply with working hours; Gwangyang Port is designated as a Class 1 national security facility and, given the special nature of this high‑risk site involving the import and export of domestic and foreign containers, it is appropriate that the employee’s misconduct be dealt with strictly; and although the employee argued that there was a practice of non‑compliance with working hours and that the employer neglected its management responsibility, there was no evidence sufficient to support this, and the responsibility for non‑compliance with working hours cannot be justified merely on the basis of “practice.”
In light of all these circumstances, the disciplinary measure cannot be regarded as having clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms or as an abuse of discretionary authority, and therefore the level of discipline is appropriate.
C. Legality of Disciplinary Procedures
The employer conducted the procedures in accordance with Article 75 of the Rules of Employment, and no other defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified; therefore, the disciplinary procedures are lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s act of “non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours” is deemed to violate Articles 19, 20, and 27 of the Rules of Employment and therefore constitutes just cause for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of Disciplinary Severity
The employee’s non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours (working 4.5 to 5 hours) was confirmed as fact and thereby undermined the trust relationship between labor and management; the employee continued to habitually shorten or adjust his working hours and persist in non‑compliance even after receiving two notices from the on‑site team leader to comply with working hours; Gwangyang Port is designated as a Class 1 national security facility and, given the special nature of this high‑risk site involving the import and export of domestic and foreign containers, it is appropriate that the employee’s misconduct be dealt with strictly; and although the employee argued that there was a practice of non‑compliance with working hours and that the employer neglected its management responsibility, there was no evidence sufficient to support this, and the responsibility for non‑compliance with working hours cannot be justified merely on the basis of “practice.”
In light of all these circumstances, the disciplinary measure cannot be regarded as having clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms or as an abuse of discretionary authority, and therefore the level of discipline is appropriate.
C. Legality of Disciplinary Procedures
The employer conducted the procedures in accordance with Article 75 of the Rules of Employment, and no other defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified; therefore, the disciplinary procedures are lawful. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Disciplinary Severity (Bicycle Drunk Driving)’”
- “Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expectation of Re‑Employment after Mandatory Retirement (Failure to Implement Re‑Employment Guidelines)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Disciplinary severity (non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours), 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 Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expectation of Re‑Employment after Mandatory Retirement (Failure to Implement Re‑Employment Guidelines)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents relating to disciplinary severity (non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours) can be viewed together under “List of Precedents Relating to Disciplinary Severity (Non‑Compliance with Daily Contractual Working Hours).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026UnfairDismissal107 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.25 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of “non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours” was found to violate Articles 19, 20, and 27 of the Rules of Employment and therefore constituted just cause for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working at Gwangyang Port, designated as a Class 1 national security facility, was dismissed for disciplinary reasons on the ground that he failed to comply with his daily contractual working hours. Claiming that the dismissal was unfair, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether there had been a violation of the Rules of Employment, whether the level of discipline (disciplinary severity) was appropriate, and whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employee repeatedly violated the daily contractual working hours, the disciplinary dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and whether there were any serious defects in the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employee’s “non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours” violated the working‑hours provisions of the Rules of Employment and therefore constituted grounds for discipline; that the employee damaged the trust relationship between labor and management by continuing to work only 4.5 to 5 hours per day even after receiving two separate notices from the on‑site team leader to comply with working hours; and that, given the special nature of Gwangyang Port as a Class 1 national security facility and a high‑risk site in terms of security and safety, strict management of neglect of duty and non‑compliance with working hours is required.
The Commission further held that there was no objective evidence to support the employee’s allegations of a “practice of non‑compliance with working hours” and the employer’s alleged neglect of its management responsibility; that even if some practice had existed, a practice contrary to laws and the Rules of Employment does not by itself exempt an employee from responsibility; that the level of discipline could not be regarded as having clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms; and that the disciplinary procedures followed the Rules of Employment and no particular defects were identified.
On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did not constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority in terms of grounds for discipline, disciplinary severity, or procedure, and therefore could not be regarded as unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that the obligation to comply with working hours is not a mere “formality” but is directly connected to grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment. In particular, at workplaces directly related to security and safety, repeated non‑compliance with working hours and continued violations even after repeated warnings from superiors are highly likely to be recognized by the Labor Relations Commission as just grounds for discipline or dismissal.
It is also difficult to prove the existence of a practice solely by asserting that “everyone has always done it that way” or “the manager condoned it,” and even if some practice is acknowledged, responsibility for violating laws and the Rules of Employment is not thereby exempted. When preparing for an unfair dismissal remedy, it is important to preserve objective evidence—such as emails, messenger records, and attendance records—regarding the actual working patterns, the employer’s instructions, and any practices or circumstances of acquiescence.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to clearly stipulate in the Rules of Employment the working‑time provisions, including contractual working hours, rest periods, and shift‑change times, and to manage attendance on site in accordance with those standards. Especially at workplaces with high levels of risk and security, such as Class 1 national security facilities, employers should clearly announce in advance the standards and principles for disciplinary severity regarding violations of working hours and work attitude, and, in the event of repeated violations, take step‑by‑step measures such as warnings, cautions, and reprimands, while keeping proper records.
Furthermore, when imposing severe disciplinary measures, including disciplinary dismissal, it is important to strictly comply with the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the Labor Standards Act and the Rules of Employment (such as convening a disciplinary committee, providing an opportunity for explanation, and the method of resolution and notification), in order to preempt disputes over procedural defects. By consulting with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and refining these aspects in advance, employers can enhance their ability to defend themselves in future unfair dismissal disputes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s act of “non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours” is deemed to violate Articles 19, 20, and 27 of the Rules of Employment and therefore constitutes just cause for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of Disciplinary Severity
The employee’s non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours (working 4.5 to 5 hours) was confirmed as fact and thereby undermined the trust relationship between labor and management; the employee continued to habitually shorten or adjust his working hours and persist in non‑compliance even after receiving two notices from the on‑site team leader to comply with working hours; Gwangyang Port is designated as a Class 1 national security facility and, given the special nature of this high‑risk site involving the import and export of domestic and foreign containers, it is appropriate that the employee’s misconduct be dealt with strictly; and although the employee argued that there was a practice of non‑compliance with working hours and that the employer neglected its management responsibility, there was no evidence sufficient to support this, and the responsibility for non‑compliance with working hours cannot be justified merely on the basis of “practice.”
In light of all these circumstances, the disciplinary measure cannot be regarded as having clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms or as an abuse of discretionary authority, and therefore the level of discipline is appropriate.
C. Legality of Disciplinary Procedures
The employer conducted the procedures in accordance with Article 75 of the Rules of Employment, and no other defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified; therefore, the disciplinary procedures are lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s act of “non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours” is deemed to violate Articles 19, 20, and 27 of the Rules of Employment and therefore constitutes just cause for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of Disciplinary Severity
The employee’s non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours (working 4.5 to 5 hours) was confirmed as fact and thereby undermined the trust relationship between labor and management; the employee continued to habitually shorten or adjust his working hours and persist in non‑compliance even after receiving two notices from the on‑site team leader to comply with working hours; Gwangyang Port is designated as a Class 1 national security facility and, given the special nature of this high‑risk site involving the import and export of domestic and foreign containers, it is appropriate that the employee’s misconduct be dealt with strictly; and although the employee argued that there was a practice of non‑compliance with working hours and that the employer neglected its management responsibility, there was no evidence sufficient to support this, and the responsibility for non‑compliance with working hours cannot be justified merely on the basis of “practice.”
In light of all these circumstances, the disciplinary measure cannot be regarded as having clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms or as an abuse of discretionary authority, and therefore the level of discipline is appropriate.
C. Legality of Disciplinary Procedures
The employer conducted the procedures in accordance with Article 75 of the Rules of Employment, and no other defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified; therefore, the disciplinary procedures are lawful. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Disciplinary Severity (Bicycle Drunk Driving)’”
- “Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expectation of Re‑Employment after Mandatory Retirement (Failure to Implement Re‑Employment Guidelines)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Disciplinary severity (non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours), 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 Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expectation of Re‑Employment after Mandatory Retirement (Failure to Implement Re‑Employment Guidelines)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents relating to disciplinary severity (non‑compliance with daily contractual working hours) can be viewed together under “List of Precedents Relating to Disciplinary Severity (Non‑Compliance with Daily Contractual Working Hours).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
