Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Limitation Period and Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Receipt of False On-Call Allowances)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 472)
- Date2026/05/22 04:13
- Read 96
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “disciplinary limitation period and disciplinary severity (repeated receipt of false on-call allowances).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Unfair Dismissal106 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.20 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The acts of the employees in this case in receiving on-call allowances based on falsehoods constitute conduct subject to discipline, and these acts can be viewed as a series of continuous acts. Accordingly, the starting point of the disciplinary limitation period should be calculated based on the final act in that series, and therefore it cannot be said that the disciplinary limitation period has expired.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the lawfulness of a three‑month wage reduction (pay cut) disciplinary measure was at issue before the Labor Relations Commission. The case is closely related to the types of disciplinary and unfair dismissal disputes handled by Labor Law Firm Law&. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the discipline imposed on employees who repeatedly received on-call allowances based on falsehoods was justified in terms of the disciplinary limitation period, the severity of the discipline, and the disciplinary procedures.
The issues in this case were whether, in a situation where false allowance claims had been repeatedly made over a long period, the disciplinary limitation period had expired; whether a three‑month wage reduction was excessively severe; and whether a procedural defect arising from exceeding the prescribed time limit for the disciplinary resolution was serious enough to render the disciplinary measure invalid.
The panel in this case found that the employees’ acts of receiving on-call allowances based on falsehoods constituted misconduct giving rise to grounds for discipline; that these acts were to be evaluated as a series of continuous acts; that the starting point of the disciplinary limitation period should be the time of the final act in that series; and that the provision prescribing the time limit for the disciplinary resolution was merely directory in nature.
Accordingly, as there was in fact no dismissal in this case and only the three‑month wage reduction was at issue, the panel held that it was difficult to accept the employees’ claims of unfair dismissal and unfair discipline based on the alleged expiry of the disciplinary limitation period, excessive severity of the discipline, and violations of disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission based its decision on the following grounds:
First, the receipt of on-call allowances based on falsehoods was not a one‑off act but a series of continuous and repeated acts of misconduct.
Second, in the case of such continuous conduct, the starting point of the disciplinary limitation period must be regarded as the time of the final act of misconduct, and therefore it could not be said that the disciplinary limitation period had expired.
Third, in light of the seriousness and repeated nature of the misconduct, the three‑month wage reduction could not be regarded, under general social norms, as an excessively severe disciplinary measure that had clearly lost its reasonableness.
Fourth, the provision prescribing the time limit for the disciplinary resolution is directory in nature, and therefore the mere fact that the resolution was adopted after the expiry of that time limit does not automatically render the disciplinary measure invalid.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where misconduct directly linked to monetary benefits—such as false allowance claims or falsified attendance records—is repeated, one should not easily expect the disciplinary limitation period to have run merely because time has passed. Furthermore, in order to argue that disciplinary measures such as wage reduction or suspension are excessive, it is necessary to adopt a strategy of specifically proving mitigating factors, such as the nature, frequency, and motive of one’s misconduct, the extent of the damage caused to the company, and whether any restitution or remediation has been made.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, when repeated misconduct such as false allowance claims is discovered, it is important to calculate the disciplinary limitation period based on the time of the final act, and to clearly investigate and record the circumstances, frequency, and amounts involved. In addition, it is advisable to specify in the rules of employment and HR regulations the types of disciplinary measures, the criteria for determining their severity, and the nature (directory or mandatory) of any time limits for disciplinary resolutions, and to strictly comply with those regulations and relevant case law in convening the disciplinary committee, giving notice, and adopting resolutions.
In this type of disciplinary and unfair dismissal dispute, it is essential in practice to pay close attention to the correct legal analysis of: the starting point of the disciplinary limitation period in light of the continuous nature of the misconduct; whether the severity of the discipline is so unreasonable under general social norms as to have clearly lost its validity; and whether the provisions governing disciplinary procedures are mandatory requirements or merely directory.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The acts of the employees in this case in receiving on-call allowances based on falsehoods constitute conduct subject to discipline, and these acts can be viewed as a series of continuous acts. Accordingly, the starting point of the disciplinary limitation period should be calculated based on the final act in that series, and therefore it cannot be said that the disciplinary limitation period has expired.
B. Appropriateness of the severity of the discipline
In light of the seriousness and repeated nature of the employees’ misconduct in this case, the three‑month wage reduction is not excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The provision prescribing the time limit for the disciplinary resolution is directory in nature, and therefore the fact that the disciplinary resolution was adopted after that time limit had passed does not render the resolution unlawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The acts of the employees in this case in receiving on-call allowances based on falsehoods constitute conduct subject to discipline, and these acts can be viewed as a series of continuous acts. Accordingly, the starting point of the disciplinary limitation period should be calculated based on the final act in that series, and therefore it cannot be said that the disciplinary limitation period has expired.
B. Appropriateness of the severity of the discipline
In light of the seriousness and repeated nature of the employees’ misconduct in this case, the three‑month wage reduction is not excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The provision prescribing the time limit for the disciplinary resolution is directory in nature, and therefore the fact that the disciplinary resolution was adopted after that time limit had passed does not render the resolution unlawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Denial of Employee Status (Live-in Hospital Caregiver)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Number of Regular Employees (Aggregation Across Sole Proprietorships)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Date of decision: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary limitation period and disciplinary severity (repeated receipt of false on-call allowances), violation of company policy and noncompliance 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Denial of Employee Status (Live-in Hospital Caregiver)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “disciplinary limitation period and disciplinary severity (repeated receipt of false on-call allowances)” can be viewed together on the page “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Limitation Period and Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Receipt of False On-Call Allowances).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “disciplinary limitation period and disciplinary severity (repeated receipt of false on-call allowances).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Unfair Dismissal106 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.20 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The acts of the employees in this case in receiving on-call allowances based on falsehoods constitute conduct subject to discipline, and these acts can be viewed as a series of continuous acts. Accordingly, the starting point of the disciplinary limitation period should be calculated based on the final act in that series, and therefore it cannot be said that the disciplinary limitation period has expired.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the lawfulness of a three‑month wage reduction (pay cut) disciplinary measure was at issue before the Labor Relations Commission. The case is closely related to the types of disciplinary and unfair dismissal disputes handled by Labor Law Firm Law&. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the discipline imposed on employees who repeatedly received on-call allowances based on falsehoods was justified in terms of the disciplinary limitation period, the severity of the discipline, and the disciplinary procedures.
The issues in this case were whether, in a situation where false allowance claims had been repeatedly made over a long period, the disciplinary limitation period had expired; whether a three‑month wage reduction was excessively severe; and whether a procedural defect arising from exceeding the prescribed time limit for the disciplinary resolution was serious enough to render the disciplinary measure invalid.
The panel in this case found that the employees’ acts of receiving on-call allowances based on falsehoods constituted misconduct giving rise to grounds for discipline; that these acts were to be evaluated as a series of continuous acts; that the starting point of the disciplinary limitation period should be the time of the final act in that series; and that the provision prescribing the time limit for the disciplinary resolution was merely directory in nature.
Accordingly, as there was in fact no dismissal in this case and only the three‑month wage reduction was at issue, the panel held that it was difficult to accept the employees’ claims of unfair dismissal and unfair discipline based on the alleged expiry of the disciplinary limitation period, excessive severity of the discipline, and violations of disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission based its decision on the following grounds:
First, the receipt of on-call allowances based on falsehoods was not a one‑off act but a series of continuous and repeated acts of misconduct.
Second, in the case of such continuous conduct, the starting point of the disciplinary limitation period must be regarded as the time of the final act of misconduct, and therefore it could not be said that the disciplinary limitation period had expired.
Third, in light of the seriousness and repeated nature of the misconduct, the three‑month wage reduction could not be regarded, under general social norms, as an excessively severe disciplinary measure that had clearly lost its reasonableness.
Fourth, the provision prescribing the time limit for the disciplinary resolution is directory in nature, and therefore the mere fact that the resolution was adopted after the expiry of that time limit does not automatically render the disciplinary measure invalid.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where misconduct directly linked to monetary benefits—such as false allowance claims or falsified attendance records—is repeated, one should not easily expect the disciplinary limitation period to have run merely because time has passed. Furthermore, in order to argue that disciplinary measures such as wage reduction or suspension are excessive, it is necessary to adopt a strategy of specifically proving mitigating factors, such as the nature, frequency, and motive of one’s misconduct, the extent of the damage caused to the company, and whether any restitution or remediation has been made.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, when repeated misconduct such as false allowance claims is discovered, it is important to calculate the disciplinary limitation period based on the time of the final act, and to clearly investigate and record the circumstances, frequency, and amounts involved. In addition, it is advisable to specify in the rules of employment and HR regulations the types of disciplinary measures, the criteria for determining their severity, and the nature (directory or mandatory) of any time limits for disciplinary resolutions, and to strictly comply with those regulations and relevant case law in convening the disciplinary committee, giving notice, and adopting resolutions.
In this type of disciplinary and unfair dismissal dispute, it is essential in practice to pay close attention to the correct legal analysis of: the starting point of the disciplinary limitation period in light of the continuous nature of the misconduct; whether the severity of the discipline is so unreasonable under general social norms as to have clearly lost its validity; and whether the provisions governing disciplinary procedures are mandatory requirements or merely directory.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The acts of the employees in this case in receiving on-call allowances based on falsehoods constitute conduct subject to discipline, and these acts can be viewed as a series of continuous acts. Accordingly, the starting point of the disciplinary limitation period should be calculated based on the final act in that series, and therefore it cannot be said that the disciplinary limitation period has expired.
B. Appropriateness of the severity of the discipline
In light of the seriousness and repeated nature of the employees’ misconduct in this case, the three‑month wage reduction is not excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The provision prescribing the time limit for the disciplinary resolution is directory in nature, and therefore the fact that the disciplinary resolution was adopted after that time limit had passed does not render the resolution unlawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The acts of the employees in this case in receiving on-call allowances based on falsehoods constitute conduct subject to discipline, and these acts can be viewed as a series of continuous acts. Accordingly, the starting point of the disciplinary limitation period should be calculated based on the final act in that series, and therefore it cannot be said that the disciplinary limitation period has expired.
B. Appropriateness of the severity of the discipline
In light of the seriousness and repeated nature of the employees’ misconduct in this case, the three‑month wage reduction is not excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The provision prescribing the time limit for the disciplinary resolution is directory in nature, and therefore the fact that the disciplinary resolution was adopted after that time limit had passed does not render the resolution unlawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Denial of Employee Status (Live-in Hospital Caregiver)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Number of Regular Employees (Aggregation Across Sole Proprietorships)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Date of decision: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary limitation period and disciplinary severity (repeated receipt of false on-call allowances), violation of company policy and noncompliance 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Denial of Employee Status (Live-in Hospital Caregiver)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “disciplinary limitation period and disciplinary severity (repeated receipt of false on-call allowances)” can be viewed together on the page “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Limitation Period and Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Receipt of False On-Call Allowances).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
