Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Failure to Follow Superior’s Instructions · Obstruction of Union Affairs)” (Unfair Dismissal 113)
- Date2026/01/15 04:09
- Read 223
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary sanction (failure to follow superior’s instructions · obstruction of union affairs).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3840 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.11.17 · Outcome: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Summary of key issues:
(a) Existence of grounds for discipline: It was found that the employee failed to comply with the superior’s instructions and obstructed the normal performance of the union’s work, and thus some grounds for discipline were recognized.
(b) Appropriateness of the level of discipline: (i) Only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established; (ii) it was confirmed that the employer also engaged in insulting conduct toward the employee, including abusive language and verbal abuse, which constitutes a circumstance warranting consideration of the employee’s misconduct; (iii) the grounds for discipline arose 9 to 21 months earlier, and at the time the employer took no separate warning or disciplinary measures…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was dismissed on the grounds that he/she failed to follow instructions from a superior and obstructed the normal operations of the union. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and the matter was contested before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.
The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined not only the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, but also whether the level of disciplinary dismissal was socially acceptable and reasonable. This case can be viewed as illustrating the typical issues that frequently arise in disciplinary and unfair dismissal disputes handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee’s misconduct consisting of failure to follow a superior’s instructions and obstruction of union affairs is partially established, does a disciplinary dismissal imposed through a procedurally lawful disciplinary process nevertheless constitute an unfair dismissal on the ground that the level of discipline is excessively severe?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee failed to comply with the superior’s instructions and obstructed the normal performance of the union’s work. At the same time, it found that the employer had engaged in insulting conduct toward the employee, including abusive language and verbal abuse, which constitutes a circumstance warranting consideration of the employee’s misconduct. It also noted that the grounds for discipline had arisen 9 to 21 months earlier, yet the employer had not, at that time, taken any particular warning or disciplinary measures.
In light of the above, the Commission held that, although the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary procedures themselves were established, the dismissal constituted an excessively severe sanction in comparison with the employee’s misconduct according to social norms, and therefore the level of discipline was unduly harsh.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be borne in mind that repeatedly refusing to comply with a superior’s legitimate work instructions, or obstructing the organization’s normal operations under the pretext of union work, can constitute grounds for discipline.
However, the employer’s abusive or insulting language, and the fact that past misconduct was left unaddressed for a long period without warnings, can operate as mitigating factors when assessing the level of discipline. Accordingly, when filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it is important to specifically allege and prove such circumstances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where only some of the alleged grounds for discipline are established, where past misconduct was left unattended for a long period after it occurred, or where the employer itself responded inappropriately during the course of the conflict by using abusive or insulting language, there is a significant risk that a disciplinary dismissal will be found by the Labor Relations Commission to be excessive in terms of the level of discipline.
Therefore, it is necessary to systematically organize factors such as the timing, degree, and repetition of the misconduct, and its impact on workplace order, and to first consider stepwise disciplinary measures such as warnings, reprimands, or suspensions. When determining the level of discipline, employers should always review it against the Supreme Court’s standard of whether the measure “has clearly lost its reasonableness according to social norms.”
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since it was established that the employee failed to comply with the superior’s instructions and obstructed the normal performance of the union’s work, some grounds for discipline were recognized.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of (i) the fact that only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established; (ii) the fact that it was confirmed that the employer also engaged in insulting conduct toward the employee, including abusive language and verbal abuse, which constitutes a circumstance warranting consideration of the employee’s misconduct; and (iii) the fact that the grounds for discipline arose 9 to 21 months earlier, and at the time the employer did not issue any particular warnings or initiate any disciplinary procedures, the dismissal was found to be an excessively severe disciplinary measure in comparison with the employee’s misconduct and therefore unfair.
c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee attended the personnel committee and was given an opportunity to explain and defend against the grounds for discipline, and the disciplinary procedures were conducted in accordance with the relevant rules. Thus, there appears to be no procedural defect.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since it was established that the employee failed to comply with the superior’s instructions and obstructed the normal performance of the union’s work, some grounds for discipline were recognized.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of (i) the fact that only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established; (ii) the fact that it was confirmed that the employer also engaged in insulting conduct toward the employee, including abusive language and verbal abuse, which constitutes a circumstance warranting consideration of the employee’s misconduct; and (iii) the fact that the grounds for discipline arose 9 to 21 months earlier, and at the time the employer did not issue any particular warnings or initiate any disciplinary procedures, the dismissal was found to be an excessively severe disciplinary measure in comparison with the employee’s misconduct and therefore unfair.
c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee attended the personnel committee and was given an opportunity to explain and defend against the grounds for discipline, and the disciplinary procedures were conducted in accordance with the relevant rules. Thus, there appears to be no procedural defect. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Irrevocability of Resignation (Oral Resignation)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary sanction (failure to follow superior’s instructions · obstruction of union affairs), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to follow 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Irrevocability of Resignation (Oral Resignation)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary sanction (failure to follow superior’s instructions · obstruction of union affairs) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Failure to Follow Superior’s Instructions · Obstruction of Union Affairs).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary sanction (failure to follow superior’s instructions · obstruction of union affairs).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3840 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.11.17 · Outcome: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Summary of key issues:
(a) Existence of grounds for discipline: It was found that the employee failed to comply with the superior’s instructions and obstructed the normal performance of the union’s work, and thus some grounds for discipline were recognized.
(b) Appropriateness of the level of discipline: (i) Only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established; (ii) it was confirmed that the employer also engaged in insulting conduct toward the employee, including abusive language and verbal abuse, which constitutes a circumstance warranting consideration of the employee’s misconduct; (iii) the grounds for discipline arose 9 to 21 months earlier, and at the time the employer took no separate warning or disciplinary measures…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was dismissed on the grounds that he/she failed to follow instructions from a superior and obstructed the normal operations of the union. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and the matter was contested before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.
The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined not only the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, but also whether the level of disciplinary dismissal was socially acceptable and reasonable. This case can be viewed as illustrating the typical issues that frequently arise in disciplinary and unfair dismissal disputes handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee’s misconduct consisting of failure to follow a superior’s instructions and obstruction of union affairs is partially established, does a disciplinary dismissal imposed through a procedurally lawful disciplinary process nevertheless constitute an unfair dismissal on the ground that the level of discipline is excessively severe?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee failed to comply with the superior’s instructions and obstructed the normal performance of the union’s work. At the same time, it found that the employer had engaged in insulting conduct toward the employee, including abusive language and verbal abuse, which constitutes a circumstance warranting consideration of the employee’s misconduct. It also noted that the grounds for discipline had arisen 9 to 21 months earlier, yet the employer had not, at that time, taken any particular warning or disciplinary measures.
In light of the above, the Commission held that, although the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary procedures themselves were established, the dismissal constituted an excessively severe sanction in comparison with the employee’s misconduct according to social norms, and therefore the level of discipline was unduly harsh.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be borne in mind that repeatedly refusing to comply with a superior’s legitimate work instructions, or obstructing the organization’s normal operations under the pretext of union work, can constitute grounds for discipline.
However, the employer’s abusive or insulting language, and the fact that past misconduct was left unaddressed for a long period without warnings, can operate as mitigating factors when assessing the level of discipline. Accordingly, when filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it is important to specifically allege and prove such circumstances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where only some of the alleged grounds for discipline are established, where past misconduct was left unattended for a long period after it occurred, or where the employer itself responded inappropriately during the course of the conflict by using abusive or insulting language, there is a significant risk that a disciplinary dismissal will be found by the Labor Relations Commission to be excessive in terms of the level of discipline.
Therefore, it is necessary to systematically organize factors such as the timing, degree, and repetition of the misconduct, and its impact on workplace order, and to first consider stepwise disciplinary measures such as warnings, reprimands, or suspensions. When determining the level of discipline, employers should always review it against the Supreme Court’s standard of whether the measure “has clearly lost its reasonableness according to social norms.”
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since it was established that the employee failed to comply with the superior’s instructions and obstructed the normal performance of the union’s work, some grounds for discipline were recognized.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of (i) the fact that only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established; (ii) the fact that it was confirmed that the employer also engaged in insulting conduct toward the employee, including abusive language and verbal abuse, which constitutes a circumstance warranting consideration of the employee’s misconduct; and (iii) the fact that the grounds for discipline arose 9 to 21 months earlier, and at the time the employer did not issue any particular warnings or initiate any disciplinary procedures, the dismissal was found to be an excessively severe disciplinary measure in comparison with the employee’s misconduct and therefore unfair.
c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee attended the personnel committee and was given an opportunity to explain and defend against the grounds for discipline, and the disciplinary procedures were conducted in accordance with the relevant rules. Thus, there appears to be no procedural defect.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since it was established that the employee failed to comply with the superior’s instructions and obstructed the normal performance of the union’s work, some grounds for discipline were recognized.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of (i) the fact that only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established; (ii) the fact that it was confirmed that the employer also engaged in insulting conduct toward the employee, including abusive language and verbal abuse, which constitutes a circumstance warranting consideration of the employee’s misconduct; and (iii) the fact that the grounds for discipline arose 9 to 21 months earlier, and at the time the employer did not issue any particular warnings or initiate any disciplinary procedures, the dismissal was found to be an excessively severe disciplinary measure in comparison with the employee’s misconduct and therefore unfair.
c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee attended the personnel committee and was given an opportunity to explain and defend against the grounds for discipline, and the disciplinary procedures were conducted in accordance with the relevant rules. Thus, there appears to be no procedural defect. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Irrevocability of Resignation (Oral Resignation)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary sanction (failure to follow superior’s instructions · obstruction of union affairs), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to follow 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Irrevocability of Resignation (Oral Resignation)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary sanction (failure to follow superior’s instructions · obstruction of union affairs) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Failure to Follow Superior’s Instructions · Obstruction of Union Affairs).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
