Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Work Performance by Security Team Leader)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 98)
- Date2026/01/12 14:58
- Read 221
[Case Information]
- Case Name: ‘Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Work Performance by Security Team Leader)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- Case Number: Dismissed
- Decision-Making Body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae268 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Date of Decision: –
- Summary of Outcome:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee submitted a written statement of facts acknowledging the existence of grounds for discipline, and such conduct falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 58 (Article 1, Subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
As the employee in this case was a security team leader who bore greater responsibility than other security staff, etc., …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working as a security team leader was subjected to disciplinary action for using a laptop, watching videos, and sleeping while on duty. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the disciplinary measure amounted to an unfair punishment equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of the employer’s suspension decision, focusing in particular on (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. In this process, the support of labor experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& can be of significant practical importance.
Ⅱ. Key Issues
The key issue in this case is:
“Whether a suspension imposed on a security team leader for negligent work performance (use of a laptop, watching videos, sleeping, etc. while on duty) constitutes an unfair disciplinary measure equivalent to unfair dismissal in terms of the grounds for discipline, the severity of the discipline, and the procedures followed.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee had submitted a written statement of facts in which he himself acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline; that the conduct described therein corresponded to the types of acts listed as grounds for discipline in Article 58 (Article 1, Subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3) of the Rules of Employment; that, by virtue of his position as a security team leader, he was required to bear greater responsibility and set a higher standard of conduct than ordinary security guards; that he had previously received a “warning” for disorderly conduct; and that other employees had been disciplined with suspensions of 15 days to 1 month for similar conduct such as sleeping or using a laptop while on duty.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the suspension in this case fell within the grounds for discipline stipulated in the Rules of Employment, that the level of discipline could not be regarded as manifestly excessive by social standards, and that there were no particular unlawful circumstances apparent in the disciplinary procedures.
The Commission therefore held that the dismissal measure in this case could not be regarded as unfair, on the grounds that, in terms of the grounds for discipline, the severity of the discipline, and the disciplinary procedures, it did not constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to be aware that if you broadly admit to the grounds for discipline in a written statement of facts or written explanation, the Labor Relations Commission may readily find that grounds for discipline exist at a later stage.
In addition, disciplinary measures such as suspension and pay cuts also constitute “punishment” under the Labor Standards Act and may be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. However, where the disciplinary standards are clearly set out in the Rules of Employment and the level of discipline is consistent with comparable past cases within the company, the Labor Relations Commission may side with the employer even if the level of discipline feels somewhat harsh.
In similar situations, it is advisable to consult with a labor attorney in advance to assess whether there is room to contest the measure, taking into account your position, past disciplinary history, parity with other colleagues’ cases, and the actual seriousness of the negligent work performance.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to specify in the Rules of Employment the grounds for discipline and standards for the level of discipline in cases of negligent work performance and private activities during working hours, and to establish a practice of consistently imposing discipline in line with those standards in similar cases.
In particular, for positions directly related to safety, such as security and guarding, employers should hold higher-ranking personnel to stricter standards of responsibility, while maintaining proportionality and fairness so that the level of discipline is not markedly more severe than that imposed on other employees.
In terms of procedure, if the employer secures written statements of facts, provides the employee with an opportunity to explain, and clearly links the grounds for discipline to the relevant provisions of the Rules of Employment, this can be advantageous in defending the case before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee submitted a written statement of facts acknowledging the existence of grounds for discipline, and such conduct falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 58 (Article 1, Subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee in this case held the position of security team leader, which requires a greater sense of responsibility and exemplary conduct than that expected of other security staff; he had a prior record of having received a “warning” for disorderly conduct; in another case, an employee received a 15-day suspension for negligent work performance (sleeping while on duty); and the employer has imposed suspensions ranging from 15 days to 1 month for conduct such as using a laptop, watching videos, and sleeping while on duty. In light of all these factors, it is difficult to view the level of suspension imposed in this case as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
There appear to be no particular circumstances that would justify finding the disciplinary procedures unlawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee submitted a written statement of facts acknowledging the existence of grounds for discipline, and such conduct falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 58 (Article 1, Subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee in this case held the position of security team leader, which requires a greater sense of responsibility and exemplary conduct than that expected of other security staff; he had a prior record of having received a “warning” for disorderly conduct; in another case, an employee received a 15-day suspension for negligent work performance (sleeping while on duty); and the employer has imposed suspensions ranging from 15 days to 1 month for conduct such as using a laptop, watching videos, and sleeping while on duty. In light of all these factors, it is difficult to view the level of suspension imposed in this case as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
There appear to be no particular circumstances that would justify finding the disciplinary procedures unlawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
- ‘Dismissal of Case (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Disciplinary severity (negligent work performance by security team leader), violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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, ‘Hiring Decision in Existence (Request for Explanation of Inappropriate Conduct During Graduate School)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision, in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (negligent work performance by security team leader) at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Work Performance by Security Team Leader).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case Name: ‘Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Work Performance by Security Team Leader)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- Case Number: Dismissed
- Decision-Making Body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae268 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Date of Decision: –
- Summary of Outcome:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee submitted a written statement of facts acknowledging the existence of grounds for discipline, and such conduct falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 58 (Article 1, Subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
As the employee in this case was a security team leader who bore greater responsibility than other security staff, etc., …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working as a security team leader was subjected to disciplinary action for using a laptop, watching videos, and sleeping while on duty. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the disciplinary measure amounted to an unfair punishment equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of the employer’s suspension decision, focusing in particular on (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. In this process, the support of labor experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& can be of significant practical importance.
Ⅱ. Key Issues
The key issue in this case is:
“Whether a suspension imposed on a security team leader for negligent work performance (use of a laptop, watching videos, sleeping, etc. while on duty) constitutes an unfair disciplinary measure equivalent to unfair dismissal in terms of the grounds for discipline, the severity of the discipline, and the procedures followed.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee had submitted a written statement of facts in which he himself acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline; that the conduct described therein corresponded to the types of acts listed as grounds for discipline in Article 58 (Article 1, Subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3) of the Rules of Employment; that, by virtue of his position as a security team leader, he was required to bear greater responsibility and set a higher standard of conduct than ordinary security guards; that he had previously received a “warning” for disorderly conduct; and that other employees had been disciplined with suspensions of 15 days to 1 month for similar conduct such as sleeping or using a laptop while on duty.
In light of the above, the Commission found that the suspension in this case fell within the grounds for discipline stipulated in the Rules of Employment, that the level of discipline could not be regarded as manifestly excessive by social standards, and that there were no particular unlawful circumstances apparent in the disciplinary procedures.
The Commission therefore held that the dismissal measure in this case could not be regarded as unfair, on the grounds that, in terms of the grounds for discipline, the severity of the discipline, and the disciplinary procedures, it did not constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to be aware that if you broadly admit to the grounds for discipline in a written statement of facts or written explanation, the Labor Relations Commission may readily find that grounds for discipline exist at a later stage.
In addition, disciplinary measures such as suspension and pay cuts also constitute “punishment” under the Labor Standards Act and may be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. However, where the disciplinary standards are clearly set out in the Rules of Employment and the level of discipline is consistent with comparable past cases within the company, the Labor Relations Commission may side with the employer even if the level of discipline feels somewhat harsh.
In similar situations, it is advisable to consult with a labor attorney in advance to assess whether there is room to contest the measure, taking into account your position, past disciplinary history, parity with other colleagues’ cases, and the actual seriousness of the negligent work performance.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to specify in the Rules of Employment the grounds for discipline and standards for the level of discipline in cases of negligent work performance and private activities during working hours, and to establish a practice of consistently imposing discipline in line with those standards in similar cases.
In particular, for positions directly related to safety, such as security and guarding, employers should hold higher-ranking personnel to stricter standards of responsibility, while maintaining proportionality and fairness so that the level of discipline is not markedly more severe than that imposed on other employees.
In terms of procedure, if the employer secures written statements of facts, provides the employee with an opportunity to explain, and clearly links the grounds for discipline to the relevant provisions of the Rules of Employment, this can be advantageous in defending the case before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee submitted a written statement of facts acknowledging the existence of grounds for discipline, and such conduct falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 58 (Article 1, Subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee in this case held the position of security team leader, which requires a greater sense of responsibility and exemplary conduct than that expected of other security staff; he had a prior record of having received a “warning” for disorderly conduct; in another case, an employee received a 15-day suspension for negligent work performance (sleeping while on duty); and the employer has imposed suspensions ranging from 15 days to 1 month for conduct such as using a laptop, watching videos, and sleeping while on duty. In light of all these factors, it is difficult to view the level of suspension imposed in this case as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
There appear to be no particular circumstances that would justify finding the disciplinary procedures unlawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee submitted a written statement of facts acknowledging the existence of grounds for discipline, and such conduct falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 58 (Article 1, Subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee in this case held the position of security team leader, which requires a greater sense of responsibility and exemplary conduct than that expected of other security staff; he had a prior record of having received a “warning” for disorderly conduct; in another case, an employee received a 15-day suspension for negligent work performance (sleeping while on duty); and the employer has imposed suspensions ranging from 15 days to 1 month for conduct such as using a laptop, watching videos, and sleeping while on duty. In light of all these factors, it is difficult to view the level of suspension imposed in this case as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
There appear to be no particular circumstances that would justify finding the disciplinary procedures unlawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
- ‘Dismissal of Case (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Disciplinary severity (negligent work performance by security team leader), violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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, ‘Hiring Decision in Existence (Request for Explanation of Inappropriate Conduct During Graduate School)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision, in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (negligent work performance by security team leader) at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Work Performance by Security Team Leader).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
