Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Improper Solicitation · Receipt of Entertainment)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 83)
- Date2026/01/11 21:24
- Read 201
‘Disciplinary Severity (Improper Solicitation · Receipt of Entertainment)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Case Information]
- Case name: ‘Disciplinary Severity (Improper Solicitation · Receipt of Entertainment)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3401 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
20 November 2025
- Summary of outcome:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It is difficult to acknowledge that the employee prepared false documents; however, improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, etc. are recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, etc. are deemed serious misconduct, and as the original disciplinary measure of dismissal was reduced to a three‑month suspension from duty, the three‑month suspension is not excessive in light of the seriousness of the recognized grounds for discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employee was given sufficient opportunity to explain regarding the grounds for discipline, and the employer is deemed to have sufficiently investigated the grounds for discipline by even proceeding with a re‑examination disciplinary procedure. It is difficult to find that additional investigation by the employer was necessary or that there was an abuse of authority, and therefore the disciplinary procedures are deemed to have been fully observed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
This unfair dismissal case arose when an employee, having been disciplined on grounds including the alleged preparation of false documents, filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission challenging the legitimacy of the disciplinary action. The Commission did not recognize the allegation concerning preparation of false documents, but did acknowledge certain misconduct such as improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, and focused its review on the lawfulness of the disciplinary measure, which had been mitigated from dismissal to a three‑month suspension from duty.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where the principal ground for discipline, i.e., preparation of false documents, is not recognized, but only certain misconduct such as improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment is acknowledged, whether the mitigated disciplinary measure of a three‑month suspension from duty is justified in terms of the grounds for discipline, disciplinary procedures, and the severity of the discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case took into account that the employer’s allegation of preparation of false documents was difficult to recognize due to insufficient proof; that improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment constitute serious misconduct falling under the grounds for discipline set out in the rules of employment; that the disciplinary measure had been mitigated from dismissal to a three‑month suspension from duty and thus could not be viewed as markedly excessive in light of social norms; and that the disciplinary procedures were conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions, including granting the employee sufficient opportunity to explain and going through a re‑examination disciplinary procedure.
The Commission therefore did not find this dismissal to be unfair, reasoning that even if some of the grounds for discipline were not recognized, in light of the seriousness of the remaining misconduct, the circumstances of mitigation, and compliance with procedural requirements, it was difficult to regard the disciplinary measure as an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to contest all grounds for discipline asserted by the employer, while at the same time distinguishing between facts that can actually be proven and those that cannot, and formulating a response strategy accordingly. In addition, when challenging the legitimacy of disciplinary measures such as unfair dismissal, suspension, or wage reduction, it is advisable to argue and prove not only the existence (or non‑existence) of grounds for discipline, but also whether the level of discipline is excessive in light of the nature and degree of the misconduct and its impact on workplace order, and whether sufficient opportunity to explain was guaranteed during the disciplinary process.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when asserting grounds for discipline, it is necessary to be prepared to prove, with objective materials, both that the conduct in question falls under the grounds for discipline stipulated in the employment contract, rules of employment, or collective agreement, and the underlying facts. In addition, to ensure that the level of discipline is not evaluated as markedly excessive in light of social norms, it is important to establish criteria for determining disciplinary severity that comprehensively take into account consistency with past disciplinary cases, the seriousness of the misconduct, the scale of damage, and the likelihood of recurrence, and to strictly observe procedural fairness emphasized by the Labor Relations Commission, such as the conduct of disciplinary committee proceedings and re‑examination procedures.
If these points are reviewed in advance and preparations are made for organizing the grounds for discipline, securing evidence, and designing procedures through consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, the risk of unnecessary defeat in similar disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal can be significantly reduced.
2. Matters Decided
A. Overview of the Case and Progress of Procedures
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It is difficult to acknowledge that the employee prepared false documents; however, improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, etc. are recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, etc. are deemed serious misconduct, and as the original disciplinary measure of dismissal was reduced to a three‑month suspension from duty, the three‑month suspension is not excessive in light of the seriousness of the recognized grounds for discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employee was given sufficient opportunity to explain regarding the grounds for discipline, and the employer is deemed to have sufficiently investigated the grounds for discipline by even proceeding with a re‑examination disciplinary procedure. It is difficult to find that additional investigation by the employer was necessary or that there was an abuse of authority, and therefore the disciplinary procedures are deemed to have been fully observed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It is difficult to acknowledge that the employee prepared false documents; however, improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, etc. are recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, etc. are deemed serious misconduct, and as the original disciplinary measure of dismissal was reduced to a three‑month suspension from duty, the three‑month suspension is not excessive in light of the seriousness of the recognized grounds for discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employee was given sufficient opportunity to explain regarding the grounds for discipline, and the employer is deemed to have sufficiently investigated the grounds for discipline by even proceeding with a re‑examination disciplinary procedure. It is difficult to find that additional investigation by the employer was necessary or that there was an abuse of authority, and therefore the disciplinary procedures are deemed to have been fully observed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Disciplinary severity (improper solicitation · receipt of entertainment), Disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary action), 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Legitimacy of Job Transfer (Transfer to On‑Site Safety Monitoring Position)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (improper solicitation · receipt of entertainment) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Improper Solicitation · Receipt of Entertainment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
- Case name: ‘Disciplinary Severity (Improper Solicitation · Receipt of Entertainment)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3401 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
20 November 2025
- Summary of outcome:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It is difficult to acknowledge that the employee prepared false documents; however, improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, etc. are recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, etc. are deemed serious misconduct, and as the original disciplinary measure of dismissal was reduced to a three‑month suspension from duty, the three‑month suspension is not excessive in light of the seriousness of the recognized grounds for discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employee was given sufficient opportunity to explain regarding the grounds for discipline, and the employer is deemed to have sufficiently investigated the grounds for discipline by even proceeding with a re‑examination disciplinary procedure. It is difficult to find that additional investigation by the employer was necessary or that there was an abuse of authority, and therefore the disciplinary procedures are deemed to have been fully observed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
This unfair dismissal case arose when an employee, having been disciplined on grounds including the alleged preparation of false documents, filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission challenging the legitimacy of the disciplinary action. The Commission did not recognize the allegation concerning preparation of false documents, but did acknowledge certain misconduct such as improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, and focused its review on the lawfulness of the disciplinary measure, which had been mitigated from dismissal to a three‑month suspension from duty.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where the principal ground for discipline, i.e., preparation of false documents, is not recognized, but only certain misconduct such as improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment is acknowledged, whether the mitigated disciplinary measure of a three‑month suspension from duty is justified in terms of the grounds for discipline, disciplinary procedures, and the severity of the discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case took into account that the employer’s allegation of preparation of false documents was difficult to recognize due to insufficient proof; that improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment constitute serious misconduct falling under the grounds for discipline set out in the rules of employment; that the disciplinary measure had been mitigated from dismissal to a three‑month suspension from duty and thus could not be viewed as markedly excessive in light of social norms; and that the disciplinary procedures were conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions, including granting the employee sufficient opportunity to explain and going through a re‑examination disciplinary procedure.
The Commission therefore did not find this dismissal to be unfair, reasoning that even if some of the grounds for discipline were not recognized, in light of the seriousness of the remaining misconduct, the circumstances of mitigation, and compliance with procedural requirements, it was difficult to regard the disciplinary measure as an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to contest all grounds for discipline asserted by the employer, while at the same time distinguishing between facts that can actually be proven and those that cannot, and formulating a response strategy accordingly. In addition, when challenging the legitimacy of disciplinary measures such as unfair dismissal, suspension, or wage reduction, it is advisable to argue and prove not only the existence (or non‑existence) of grounds for discipline, but also whether the level of discipline is excessive in light of the nature and degree of the misconduct and its impact on workplace order, and whether sufficient opportunity to explain was guaranteed during the disciplinary process.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when asserting grounds for discipline, it is necessary to be prepared to prove, with objective materials, both that the conduct in question falls under the grounds for discipline stipulated in the employment contract, rules of employment, or collective agreement, and the underlying facts. In addition, to ensure that the level of discipline is not evaluated as markedly excessive in light of social norms, it is important to establish criteria for determining disciplinary severity that comprehensively take into account consistency with past disciplinary cases, the seriousness of the misconduct, the scale of damage, and the likelihood of recurrence, and to strictly observe procedural fairness emphasized by the Labor Relations Commission, such as the conduct of disciplinary committee proceedings and re‑examination procedures.
If these points are reviewed in advance and preparations are made for organizing the grounds for discipline, securing evidence, and designing procedures through consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, the risk of unnecessary defeat in similar disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal can be significantly reduced.
2. Matters Decided
A. Overview of the Case and Progress of Procedures
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It is difficult to acknowledge that the employee prepared false documents; however, improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, etc. are recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, etc. are deemed serious misconduct, and as the original disciplinary measure of dismissal was reduced to a three‑month suspension from duty, the three‑month suspension is not excessive in light of the seriousness of the recognized grounds for discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employee was given sufficient opportunity to explain regarding the grounds for discipline, and the employer is deemed to have sufficiently investigated the grounds for discipline by even proceeding with a re‑examination disciplinary procedure. It is difficult to find that additional investigation by the employer was necessary or that there was an abuse of authority, and therefore the disciplinary procedures are deemed to have been fully observed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It is difficult to acknowledge that the employee prepared false documents; however, improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, etc. are recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Improper solicitation and receipt of entertainment, etc. are deemed serious misconduct, and as the original disciplinary measure of dismissal was reduced to a three‑month suspension from duty, the three‑month suspension is not excessive in light of the seriousness of the recognized grounds for discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employee was given sufficient opportunity to explain regarding the grounds for discipline, and the employer is deemed to have sufficiently investigated the grounds for discipline by even proceeding with a re‑examination disciplinary procedure. It is difficult to find that additional investigation by the employer was necessary or that there was an abuse of authority, and therefore the disciplinary procedures are deemed to have been fully observed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Disciplinary severity (improper solicitation · receipt of entertainment), Disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary action), 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Legitimacy of Job Transfer (Transfer to On‑Site Safety Monitoring Position)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (improper solicitation · receipt of entertainment) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Improper Solicitation · Receipt of Entertainment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
