Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Allowing Vehicle to Pass Nighttime Inspection Checkpoint)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 92)
- Date2026/01/12 13:14
- Read 210
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision regarding “excessive disciplinary measure (allowing vehicle to pass nighttime inspection checkpoint)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Full acceptance
- Decision-making body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae269 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of outcome:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As the worker in this case admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises without conducting the required inspection while on duty, it is deemed appropriate to regard this as a valid ground for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a worker who, while performing nighttime inspection duties, allowed a vehicle subject to inspection to exit the premises without properly inspecting it and then submitted an incorrect report about the incident. The worker was disciplined with a 15-day suspension and subsequently filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline).
The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of the grounds for discipline but focused its review of the application for remedy on whether the level of discipline imposed was appropriate.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The key issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the worker admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises without proper inspection, does a 15-day suspension imposed solely by reference to precedent, without considering the dangerous nature of the workplace, the working environment, and the worker’s remorse, constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretion in imposing discipline, such that the disciplinary measure is manifestly unreasonable by general social standards?”
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case acknowledged that the employer had valid grounds for discipline based on the worker’s act of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises and submitting an incorrect report, and that there were no particular legal defects in the disciplinary procedure itself.
However, it found that the employer failed to take into account: the worker’s acknowledgment of wrongdoing and remorse; the fact that, due to the nature of the workplace, duties were performed outside the guard post where there was a high risk of safety accidents; the poor working environment in which it was difficult at night to identify the types of vehicles passing through; and the employer’s failure to put in place sufficient safety measures for that particular worksite.
The Commission held that simply applying a “15-day suspension based on precedent” without considering these factors disrupted the balance between the grounds for discipline and the severity of the disciplinary measure.
Taking all of the above into account, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case constituted an excessively severe disciplinary measure that exceeded the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority. As the appropriateness of the level of discipline could not be recognized, the measure was found to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, even if it is difficult to deny the misconduct itself, it is important to actively substantiate factors such as whether the worker is remorseful, whether the act was committed impulsively, and whether there were employer-responsible elements such as poor working conditions or inadequate safety measures.
The Labor Relations Commission not only examines the existence of grounds for discipline but also separately determines whether the level of discipline is manifestly excessive by general social standards. Therefore, if you have received a severe disciplinary measure such as suspension or dismissal, you should consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, focusing on whether the level of discipline is excessive.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, rather than mechanically applying a disciplinary matrix or past precedents, the level of discipline should be determined comprehensively, taking into account the worker’s attitude of remorse, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, the working environment and level of safety measures, and the worker’s past work attitude.
In particular, for negligent misconduct occurring at high-risk worksites or during nighttime shifts, the company should be prepared to explain what safety measures and support were provided in advance. Only then can the employer avoid a finding by the Labor Relations Commission that it has abused its discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
To effectively respond before the Labor Relations Commission in this type of unfair dismissal/disciplinary case, it is important to fully understand the legal principles and case law trends relating to the appropriateness of disciplinary measures and to systematically organize the facts from the early stages of the case in consultation with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As the worker in this case admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises without conducting the required inspection while on duty, it is deemed appropriate to regard this as a valid ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although there are grounds for discipline in that the worker in this case allowed a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises and submitted an incorrect report, considering that the worker acknowledges and is remorseful for the failure to inspect the vehicle before allowing it to leave, that due to the nature of the workplace duties are performed outside the guard post and thus exposed to the risk of safety accidents, that it is difficult at night to identify the types of vehicles passing through, and that the employer’s safety measures for the worker’s worksite were inadequate, the Commission held that imposing a 15-day suspension solely in accordance with precedent, without considering the worker’s remorse and the particular circumstances of the worksite, exceeded the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
No circumstances are apparent in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Key points of the Labor Relations Commission’s decision
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As the worker in this case admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises without conducting the required inspection while on duty, it is deemed appropriate to regard this as a valid ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although there are grounds for discipline in that the worker in this case allowed a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises and submitted an incorrect report, considering that the worker acknowledges and is remorseful for the failure to inspect the vehicle before allowing it to leave, that due to the nature of the workplace duties are performed outside the guard post and thus exposed to the risk of safety accidents, that it is difficult at night to identify the types of vehicles passing through, and that the employer’s safety measures for the worker’s worksite were inadequate, the Commission held that imposing a 15-day suspension solely in accordance with precedent, without considering the worker’s remorse and the particular circumstances of the worksite, exceeded the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
No circumstances are apparent in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissal of application
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (allowing vehicle to pass nighttime inspection checkpoint), disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary measure), 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, “‘Justifiability of Job Transfer (On-Site Assignment of In-House Legal Counsel Who Passed the Bar Exam)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (allowing vehicle to pass nighttime inspection checkpoint) can be viewed together on the page “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Allowing Vehicle to Pass Nighttime Inspection Checkpoint).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision regarding “excessive disciplinary measure (allowing vehicle to pass nighttime inspection checkpoint)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Full acceptance
- Decision-making body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae269 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of outcome:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As the worker in this case admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises without conducting the required inspection while on duty, it is deemed appropriate to regard this as a valid ground for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a worker who, while performing nighttime inspection duties, allowed a vehicle subject to inspection to exit the premises without properly inspecting it and then submitted an incorrect report about the incident. The worker was disciplined with a 15-day suspension and subsequently filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline).
The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of the grounds for discipline but focused its review of the application for remedy on whether the level of discipline imposed was appropriate.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The key issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the worker admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises without proper inspection, does a 15-day suspension imposed solely by reference to precedent, without considering the dangerous nature of the workplace, the working environment, and the worker’s remorse, constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretion in imposing discipline, such that the disciplinary measure is manifestly unreasonable by general social standards?”
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case acknowledged that the employer had valid grounds for discipline based on the worker’s act of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises and submitting an incorrect report, and that there were no particular legal defects in the disciplinary procedure itself.
However, it found that the employer failed to take into account: the worker’s acknowledgment of wrongdoing and remorse; the fact that, due to the nature of the workplace, duties were performed outside the guard post where there was a high risk of safety accidents; the poor working environment in which it was difficult at night to identify the types of vehicles passing through; and the employer’s failure to put in place sufficient safety measures for that particular worksite.
The Commission held that simply applying a “15-day suspension based on precedent” without considering these factors disrupted the balance between the grounds for discipline and the severity of the disciplinary measure.
Taking all of the above into account, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case constituted an excessively severe disciplinary measure that exceeded the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority. As the appropriateness of the level of discipline could not be recognized, the measure was found to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, even if it is difficult to deny the misconduct itself, it is important to actively substantiate factors such as whether the worker is remorseful, whether the act was committed impulsively, and whether there were employer-responsible elements such as poor working conditions or inadequate safety measures.
The Labor Relations Commission not only examines the existence of grounds for discipline but also separately determines whether the level of discipline is manifestly excessive by general social standards. Therefore, if you have received a severe disciplinary measure such as suspension or dismissal, you should consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, focusing on whether the level of discipline is excessive.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, rather than mechanically applying a disciplinary matrix or past precedents, the level of discipline should be determined comprehensively, taking into account the worker’s attitude of remorse, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, the working environment and level of safety measures, and the worker’s past work attitude.
In particular, for negligent misconduct occurring at high-risk worksites or during nighttime shifts, the company should be prepared to explain what safety measures and support were provided in advance. Only then can the employer avoid a finding by the Labor Relations Commission that it has abused its discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
To effectively respond before the Labor Relations Commission in this type of unfair dismissal/disciplinary case, it is important to fully understand the legal principles and case law trends relating to the appropriateness of disciplinary measures and to systematically organize the facts from the early stages of the case in consultation with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As the worker in this case admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises without conducting the required inspection while on duty, it is deemed appropriate to regard this as a valid ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although there are grounds for discipline in that the worker in this case allowed a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises and submitted an incorrect report, considering that the worker acknowledges and is remorseful for the failure to inspect the vehicle before allowing it to leave, that due to the nature of the workplace duties are performed outside the guard post and thus exposed to the risk of safety accidents, that it is difficult at night to identify the types of vehicles passing through, and that the employer’s safety measures for the worker’s worksite were inadequate, the Commission held that imposing a 15-day suspension solely in accordance with precedent, without considering the worker’s remorse and the particular circumstances of the worksite, exceeded the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
No circumstances are apparent in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Key points of the Labor Relations Commission’s decision
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As the worker in this case admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises without conducting the required inspection while on duty, it is deemed appropriate to regard this as a valid ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although there are grounds for discipline in that the worker in this case allowed a vehicle subject to inspection to leave the premises and submitted an incorrect report, considering that the worker acknowledges and is remorseful for the failure to inspect the vehicle before allowing it to leave, that due to the nature of the workplace duties are performed outside the guard post and thus exposed to the risk of safety accidents, that it is difficult at night to identify the types of vehicles passing through, and that the employer’s safety measures for the worker’s worksite were inadequate, the Commission held that imposing a 15-day suspension solely in accordance with precedent, without considering the worker’s remorse and the particular circumstances of the worksite, exceeded the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
No circumstances are apparent in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissal of application
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (allowing vehicle to pass nighttime inspection checkpoint), disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary measure), 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, “‘Justifiability of Job Transfer (On-Site Assignment of In-House Legal Counsel Who Passed the Bar Exam)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (allowing vehicle to pass nighttime inspection checkpoint) can be viewed together on the page “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Allowing Vehicle to Pass Nighttime Inspection Checkpoint).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
