Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Failure to Conduct Nighttime Inspection and Search)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 95)
- Date2026/01/12 13:27
- Read 221
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision regarding “Excessive disciplinary measure (failure to conduct nighttime inspection and search)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Fully upheld
- Decision-making body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Unfair Dismissal269 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of outcome:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As the employee in this case admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises without conducting the inspection and search while on duty, it is deemed appropriate to treat this as a ground for discipline in this case.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case before the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, the employer imposed a disciplinary suspension of 15 days on an employee for allowing a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises during a night shift without properly inspecting it. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming unfair dismissal and unfair discipline.
While the Commission acknowledged the existence of the grounds for discipline, it focused its review on whether the level of discipline was excessive. In doing so, it reaffirmed the legal principle concerning the “limits on the discretion in determining the level of discipline,” which has been repeatedly applied in many unfair dismissal and redundancy cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is:
“In a situation where misconduct exists in that the employee allowed a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises without properly inspecting it, whether a 15-day suspension is, in light of the employee’s remorse, the dangerous and poor working environment, and the employer’s inadequate safety measures, so clearly unreasonable by social standards as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case proceeded on the premise that the employer had grounds for discipline in that the employee allowed a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises without inspection and thereafter submitted an incorrect report, and that the employee also acknowledged these points.
However, taking into account that the employee admitted and reflected on the wrongdoing of failing to inspect the vehicle subject to inspection and search before allowing it to leave, that due to the nature of the workplace the employee worked outside the guard post and was constantly exposed to the risk of safety accidents, that it was difficult at night to identify the types of passing vehicles, and that the employer had not sufficiently implemented measures to prevent safety accidents at that worksite, the panel held as follows:
Even if grounds for discipline exist, imposing a 15-day suspension solely on the basis of precedent, without any consideration of the above circumstances, constitutes an excessively severe disciplinary measure that exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority and is therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even where some misconduct is acknowledged, the level of discipline is not automatically justified. Factors such as remorse, whether the act was impulsive, the particular characteristics of the working environment, and the employer’s shortcomings in management and safety measures can serve as important mitigating factors in determining the level of discipline.
In particular, where the employee performs duties directly related to safety—such as inspection and search, security, or production line work—it is helpful to specifically organize and document the working conditions at the time of the incident (e.g., whether it was a night shift, whether the hours were excessively long) and the risk factors present at the site. Doing so can be advantageous when disputing the level of discipline before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where the grounds for discipline are clear, if the level of discipline is evaluated as clearly excessive by social standards, the Labor Relations Commission may find unfair dismissal or unfair discipline. Accordingly, it is necessary to establish in advance “standards for determining the level of discipline” that take into account not only the nature, motive, and circumstances of the misconduct, but also the employee’s remorse, the working environment, and the level of safety measures in place.
Furthermore, for work with a high risk of accidents—such as night work or hazardous tasks—the employer should put in place sufficient preventive measures, including specific safety guidelines, staffing arrangements, and education and training. This will help minimize the extent to which “employer’s management responsibility” operates as a mitigating factor in the determination of disciplinary measures in any subsequent disciplinary dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As the employee in this case admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises without conducting the inspection and search while on duty, it is deemed appropriate to treat this as a ground for discipline in this case.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although there are grounds for discipline in that the employee in this case allowed a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises and submitted an incorrect report, considering that the employee has acknowledged and reflected on the wrongdoing of failing to inspect the vehicle subject to inspection and search before allowing it to leave, that due to the characteristics of the workplace the employee worked outside the guard post and was exposed to the risk of safety accidents, that it was difficult at night to identify the types of passing vehicles, and that the employer’s safety measures for the employee’s worksite were inadequate, the imposition of a 15-day suspension solely on the basis of precedent, without consideration of the employee’s remorse and the particular circumstances of the worksite, is deemed a determination of the level of discipline that exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
There appear to be no particular circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As the employee in this case admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises without conducting the inspection and search while on duty, it is deemed appropriate to treat this as a ground for discipline in this case.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although there are grounds for discipline in that the employee in this case allowed a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises and submitted an incorrect report, considering that the employee has acknowledged and reflected on the wrongdoing of failing to inspect the vehicle subject to inspection and search before allowing it to leave, that due to the characteristics of the workplace the employee worked outside the guard post and was exposed to the risk of safety accidents, that it was difficult at night to identify the types of passing vehicles, and that the employer’s safety measures for the employee’s worksite were inadequate, the imposition of a 15-day suspension solely on the basis of precedent, without consideration of the employee’s remorse and the particular circumstances of the worksite, is deemed a determination of the level of discipline that exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
There appear to be no particular circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Employment Contract (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Excessive disciplinary measure (failure to conduct nighttime inspection and search), Disciplinary dismissal (level of discipline), 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, “‘Personnel Transfer and Wage Reduction (Recognition of Employee Status)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “Excessive disciplinary measure (failure to conduct nighttime inspection and search)” can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Failure to Conduct Nighttime Inspection and Search).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision regarding “Excessive disciplinary measure (failure to conduct nighttime inspection and search)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Fully upheld
- Decision-making body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Unfair Dismissal269 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of outcome:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As the employee in this case admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises without conducting the inspection and search while on duty, it is deemed appropriate to treat this as a ground for discipline in this case.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case before the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, the employer imposed a disciplinary suspension of 15 days on an employee for allowing a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises during a night shift without properly inspecting it. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming unfair dismissal and unfair discipline.
While the Commission acknowledged the existence of the grounds for discipline, it focused its review on whether the level of discipline was excessive. In doing so, it reaffirmed the legal principle concerning the “limits on the discretion in determining the level of discipline,” which has been repeatedly applied in many unfair dismissal and redundancy cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is:
“In a situation where misconduct exists in that the employee allowed a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises without properly inspecting it, whether a 15-day suspension is, in light of the employee’s remorse, the dangerous and poor working environment, and the employer’s inadequate safety measures, so clearly unreasonable by social standards as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case proceeded on the premise that the employer had grounds for discipline in that the employee allowed a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises without inspection and thereafter submitted an incorrect report, and that the employee also acknowledged these points.
However, taking into account that the employee admitted and reflected on the wrongdoing of failing to inspect the vehicle subject to inspection and search before allowing it to leave, that due to the nature of the workplace the employee worked outside the guard post and was constantly exposed to the risk of safety accidents, that it was difficult at night to identify the types of passing vehicles, and that the employer had not sufficiently implemented measures to prevent safety accidents at that worksite, the panel held as follows:
Even if grounds for discipline exist, imposing a 15-day suspension solely on the basis of precedent, without any consideration of the above circumstances, constitutes an excessively severe disciplinary measure that exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority and is therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even where some misconduct is acknowledged, the level of discipline is not automatically justified. Factors such as remorse, whether the act was impulsive, the particular characteristics of the working environment, and the employer’s shortcomings in management and safety measures can serve as important mitigating factors in determining the level of discipline.
In particular, where the employee performs duties directly related to safety—such as inspection and search, security, or production line work—it is helpful to specifically organize and document the working conditions at the time of the incident (e.g., whether it was a night shift, whether the hours were excessively long) and the risk factors present at the site. Doing so can be advantageous when disputing the level of discipline before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where the grounds for discipline are clear, if the level of discipline is evaluated as clearly excessive by social standards, the Labor Relations Commission may find unfair dismissal or unfair discipline. Accordingly, it is necessary to establish in advance “standards for determining the level of discipline” that take into account not only the nature, motive, and circumstances of the misconduct, but also the employee’s remorse, the working environment, and the level of safety measures in place.
Furthermore, for work with a high risk of accidents—such as night work or hazardous tasks—the employer should put in place sufficient preventive measures, including specific safety guidelines, staffing arrangements, and education and training. This will help minimize the extent to which “employer’s management responsibility” operates as a mitigating factor in the determination of disciplinary measures in any subsequent disciplinary dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As the employee in this case admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises without conducting the inspection and search while on duty, it is deemed appropriate to treat this as a ground for discipline in this case.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although there are grounds for discipline in that the employee in this case allowed a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises and submitted an incorrect report, considering that the employee has acknowledged and reflected on the wrongdoing of failing to inspect the vehicle subject to inspection and search before allowing it to leave, that due to the characteristics of the workplace the employee worked outside the guard post and was exposed to the risk of safety accidents, that it was difficult at night to identify the types of passing vehicles, and that the employer’s safety measures for the employee’s worksite were inadequate, the imposition of a 15-day suspension solely on the basis of precedent, without consideration of the employee’s remorse and the particular circumstances of the worksite, is deemed a determination of the level of discipline that exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
There appear to be no particular circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As the employee in this case admits to the misconduct of allowing a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises without conducting the inspection and search while on duty, it is deemed appropriate to treat this as a ground for discipline in this case.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although there are grounds for discipline in that the employee in this case allowed a vehicle subject to inspection and search to leave the premises and submitted an incorrect report, considering that the employee has acknowledged and reflected on the wrongdoing of failing to inspect the vehicle subject to inspection and search before allowing it to leave, that due to the characteristics of the workplace the employee worked outside the guard post and was exposed to the risk of safety accidents, that it was difficult at night to identify the types of passing vehicles, and that the employer’s safety measures for the employee’s worksite were inadequate, the imposition of a 15-day suspension solely on the basis of precedent, without consideration of the employee’s remorse and the particular circumstances of the worksite, is deemed a determination of the level of discipline that exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
There appear to be no particular circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Employment Contract (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Excessive disciplinary measure (failure to conduct nighttime inspection and search), Disciplinary dismissal (level of discipline), 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, “‘Personnel Transfer and Wage Reduction (Recognition of Employee Status)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “Excessive disciplinary measure (failure to conduct nighttime inspection and search)” can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Failure to Conduct Nighttime Inspection and Search).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
