Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Departure from Workplace by a Section Chief)” (Unfair Dismissal 87)
- Date2026/01/12 04:09
- Read 191
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision on “Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Departure from Workplace by a Section Chief)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae258 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of outcome:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct in leaving the workplace without any report or approval during working hours and thereby failing to properly perform his duties is sufficient to constitute grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee holding the position of section chief (part leader) left the workplace without any report or approval during working hours and, as a result, failed to properly perform his duties. For this conduct, he was given a suspension (disciplinary suspension) and subsequently filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
In the proceedings before the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, the Commission focused on (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) any defects in the disciplinary procedure. It concluded that the employer’s disciplinary action was justified and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline).
Ⅱ. Issues
The key issue in this case is:
“Where an employee in the position of section chief leaves the workplace without report or approval during working hours, is the resulting suspension a justified disciplinary measure in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) the level of discipline, and (iii) the disciplinary procedure?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that:
- The employee committed misconduct by leaving the workplace during working hours without proper report or approval and thereby failing to properly perform his duties.
- As a section chief, the employee held a position within the company that requires a higher level of responsibility and exemplary conduct than that expected of ordinary employees.
- Considering the nature of the workplace, the past practice regarding disciplinary measures, and the degree of misconduct, it is difficult to view the suspension as manifestly excessive by social standards or as an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority over personnel matters.
- The employee acknowledged the misconduct himself and clearly expressed his intention not to attend the disciplinary committee.
- Even taking into account the fact that, in line with past practice, the employer did not separately notify the labor union of the convening of the disciplinary committee, it is difficult to regard this as a serious procedural defect in the disciplinary process.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal (disciplinary action) in this case could not be considered unfair in terms of the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, or the disciplinary procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be clearly recognized that leaving the workplace or being away from one’s post for an extended period during working hours can constitute a serious ground for discipline, going beyond a mere attendance issue.
In particular, for those in positions with managerial or supervisory responsibilities, such as section chief or team leader, the same conduct may be assessed more severely. Therefore, before leaving the workplace, it is safest to obtain prior report and approval from a superior and to leave a record of such approval.
In addition, if an employee does not attend the disciplinary committee or fully admits the misconduct, the scope for later alleging procedural defects in the disciplinary process can be significantly reduced.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to clearly stipulate “unauthorized departure from the workplace” and “violation of work-related orders” as explicit grounds for discipline in the rules of employment and disciplinary regulations, and to reflect differences in responsibility by position or title in the criteria for determining the level of discipline.
Furthermore, when conducting disciplinary committee proceedings, the employer should specifically identify and notify the grounds for discipline, and consistently maintain existing practices regarding notification to the labor union and guidance on attendance, thereby ensuring procedural fairness.
If such preparations are in place, the employer will be in a more advantageous position when the Labor Relations Commission examines whether there has been an abuse of discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline, particularly in assessing whether the disciplinary measure is “manifestly unreasonable by social standards.”
(© Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct in leaving the workplace without any report or approval during working hours and thereby failing to properly perform his duties is sufficient to constitute grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the employee’s position within the company (section chief), the nature of the workplace, the degree of misconduct, and past practice regarding disciplinary measures, it is difficult to regard the suspension as excessively severe or as an abuse of the employer’s authority over personnel matters.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Given that the employee directly admitted the misconduct and expressed his intention not to attend the disciplinary committee, it is difficult to consider the failure to notify the labor union of the convening of the disciplinary committee—consistent with past practice—as a serious procedural defect rendering the disciplinary action null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct in leaving the workplace without any report or approval during working hours and thereby failing to properly perform his duties is sufficient to constitute grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the employee’s position within the company (section chief), the nature of the workplace, the degree of misconduct, and past practice regarding disciplinary measures, it is difficult to regard the suspension as excessively severe or as an abuse of the employer’s authority over personnel matters.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Given that the employee directly admitted the misconduct and expressed his intention not to attend the disciplinary committee, it is difficult to consider the failure to notify the labor union of the convening of the disciplinary committee—consistent with past practice—as a serious procedural defect rendering the disciplinary action null and void. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Employee Status · Transfer Order (Transition to Direct Management of Hospital)’”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Disciplinary severity (unauthorized departure from workplace by a section chief), Disciplinary dismissal, 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Employee Status · Transfer Order (Transition to Direct Management of Hospital)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Departure from Workplace by a Section Chief) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Departure from Workplace by a Section Chief).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision on “Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Departure from Workplace by a Section Chief)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae258 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of outcome:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct in leaving the workplace without any report or approval during working hours and thereby failing to properly perform his duties is sufficient to constitute grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee holding the position of section chief (part leader) left the workplace without any report or approval during working hours and, as a result, failed to properly perform his duties. For this conduct, he was given a suspension (disciplinary suspension) and subsequently filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
In the proceedings before the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, the Commission focused on (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) any defects in the disciplinary procedure. It concluded that the employer’s disciplinary action was justified and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline).
Ⅱ. Issues
The key issue in this case is:
“Where an employee in the position of section chief leaves the workplace without report or approval during working hours, is the resulting suspension a justified disciplinary measure in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) the level of discipline, and (iii) the disciplinary procedure?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that:
- The employee committed misconduct by leaving the workplace during working hours without proper report or approval and thereby failing to properly perform his duties.
- As a section chief, the employee held a position within the company that requires a higher level of responsibility and exemplary conduct than that expected of ordinary employees.
- Considering the nature of the workplace, the past practice regarding disciplinary measures, and the degree of misconduct, it is difficult to view the suspension as manifestly excessive by social standards or as an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority over personnel matters.
- The employee acknowledged the misconduct himself and clearly expressed his intention not to attend the disciplinary committee.
- Even taking into account the fact that, in line with past practice, the employer did not separately notify the labor union of the convening of the disciplinary committee, it is difficult to regard this as a serious procedural defect in the disciplinary process.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal (disciplinary action) in this case could not be considered unfair in terms of the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, or the disciplinary procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be clearly recognized that leaving the workplace or being away from one’s post for an extended period during working hours can constitute a serious ground for discipline, going beyond a mere attendance issue.
In particular, for those in positions with managerial or supervisory responsibilities, such as section chief or team leader, the same conduct may be assessed more severely. Therefore, before leaving the workplace, it is safest to obtain prior report and approval from a superior and to leave a record of such approval.
In addition, if an employee does not attend the disciplinary committee or fully admits the misconduct, the scope for later alleging procedural defects in the disciplinary process can be significantly reduced.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to clearly stipulate “unauthorized departure from the workplace” and “violation of work-related orders” as explicit grounds for discipline in the rules of employment and disciplinary regulations, and to reflect differences in responsibility by position or title in the criteria for determining the level of discipline.
Furthermore, when conducting disciplinary committee proceedings, the employer should specifically identify and notify the grounds for discipline, and consistently maintain existing practices regarding notification to the labor union and guidance on attendance, thereby ensuring procedural fairness.
If such preparations are in place, the employer will be in a more advantageous position when the Labor Relations Commission examines whether there has been an abuse of discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline, particularly in assessing whether the disciplinary measure is “manifestly unreasonable by social standards.”
(© Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct in leaving the workplace without any report or approval during working hours and thereby failing to properly perform his duties is sufficient to constitute grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the employee’s position within the company (section chief), the nature of the workplace, the degree of misconduct, and past practice regarding disciplinary measures, it is difficult to regard the suspension as excessively severe or as an abuse of the employer’s authority over personnel matters.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Given that the employee directly admitted the misconduct and expressed his intention not to attend the disciplinary committee, it is difficult to consider the failure to notify the labor union of the convening of the disciplinary committee—consistent with past practice—as a serious procedural defect rendering the disciplinary action null and void.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct in leaving the workplace without any report or approval during working hours and thereby failing to properly perform his duties is sufficient to constitute grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the employee’s position within the company (section chief), the nature of the workplace, the degree of misconduct, and past practice regarding disciplinary measures, it is difficult to regard the suspension as excessively severe or as an abuse of the employer’s authority over personnel matters.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Given that the employee directly admitted the misconduct and expressed his intention not to attend the disciplinary committee, it is difficult to consider the failure to notify the labor union of the convening of the disciplinary committee—consistent with past practice—as a serious procedural defect rendering the disciplinary action null and void. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Employee Status · Transfer Order (Transition to Direct Management of Hospital)’”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Disciplinary severity (unauthorized departure from workplace by a section chief), Disciplinary dismissal, 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Employee Status · Transfer Order (Transition to Direct Management of Hospital)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Departure from Workplace by a Section Chief) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Departure from Workplace by a Section Chief).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
