Corporate trends / Performance record
“Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Violation of Prohibition on Outside Work)” Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 123)
- Date2026/01/18 04:13
- Read 224
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (violation of prohibition on outside work).”
Adjudicating body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae912 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.14 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issue:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Even though the employer’s personnel regulations and reporting guidelines for outside work prohibit outside work, the employee’s violation of these rules constitutes grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer, relying on its personnel regulations and reporting guidelines for outside work, imposed a one‑month suspension as a disciplinary measure on the ground that the employee violated the prohibition on outside work. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that the disciplinary measure was excessively severe. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline, but focused its review on whether the level of discipline was excessively harsh.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where it is acknowledged that the employee violated the rule prohibiting outside work, whether a one‑month suspension is, in light of the degree of intent and the extent of any damage to the company’s reputation, so clearly unreasonable by social norms as to constitute an unfair dismissal due to excessive disciplinary measure.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case recognized the existence of grounds for discipline, noting that the employer’s personnel regulations and reporting guidelines for outside work explicitly prohibit outside work and that the employee did in fact violate these rules. However, considering that it is difficult to view the employee’s outside work as intentional, that there are no circumstances indicating that the outside work actually damaged the reputation of the workplace, and that the Supreme Court has held that, in assessing the legitimacy of the level of discipline, one must comprehensively consider the motive and background of the misconduct, its impact on corporate order, etc., and that only when the measure is clearly unreasonable by social norms is it unlawful,
the panel found that a one‑month suspension, imposed by additionally taking into account a violation of the duty to maintain dignity in relation to the employee’s conduct, constituted an excessively severe sanction.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held to be unfair, on the ground that although the grounds for discipline were recognized, the level of discipline was clearly unreasonable by social norms.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should always check in advance how concurrent employment, side jobs, and outside work are regulated in the company’s personnel regulations, rules of employment, and reporting guidelines for outside work. If discipline is actually imposed, it is necessary to examine the possibility of applying for a remedy for unfair dismissal, focusing on whether there was intent in one’s conduct, whether the company’s reputation or corporate order was actually harmed, and whether the discipline is excessive in light of one’s past work attitude and the overall level of misconduct.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
Employers should establish clear rules prohibiting outside work and reporting guidelines, and sufficiently notify and train employees in advance, so as to secure predictability regarding grounds for discipline. When determining the level of discipline, it is important to set it at a level that will not be evaluated as excessive by social norms, by comprehensively considering the motive and background of the misconduct, whether it was repeated, its specific impact on corporate order and the company’s reputation, and whether any damage has been remedied.
In cases of this type, obtaining assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& enables employers to systematically organize the legal principles on the appropriateness of the level of discipline, separate from the grounds for discipline themselves, and to select and prove the circumstances that the Labor Relations Commission considers important, thereby preventing and responding to unfair dismissal disputes more effectively.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Even though the employer’s personnel regulations and reporting guidelines for outside work prohibit outside work, the employee’s violation of these rules constitutes grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
It is difficult to find that the employee’s violation of the prohibition on outside work was intentional, and there are no circumstances indicating that the employee’s outside work damaged the reputation of the workplace. Therefore, the one‑month suspension, imposed by taking into account a violation of the duty to maintain dignity in determining the level of discipline, is deemed excessively severe.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Even though the employer’s personnel regulations and reporting guidelines for outside work prohibit outside work, the employee’s violation of these rules constitutes grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
It is difficult to find that the employee’s violation of the prohibition on outside work was intentional, and there are no circumstances indicating that the employee’s outside work damaged the reputation of the workplace. Therefore, the one‑month suspension, imposed by taking into account a violation of the duty to maintain dignity in determining the level of discipline, is deemed excessively severe. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Written Notice (Defective Notice of Dismissal)’ Unfair Dismissal Case”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone)’ Unfair Dismissal Case”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Case”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (violation of prohibition on outside work), violation of company policy · noncompliance 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 Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Final Acceptance Notice)’ Unfair Dismissal Case,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (violation of prohibition on outside work) can be found under “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Violation of Prohibition on Outside Work).”
※ 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 measure (violation of prohibition on outside work).”
Adjudicating body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae912 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.14 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issue:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Even though the employer’s personnel regulations and reporting guidelines for outside work prohibit outside work, the employee’s violation of these rules constitutes grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer, relying on its personnel regulations and reporting guidelines for outside work, imposed a one‑month suspension as a disciplinary measure on the ground that the employee violated the prohibition on outside work. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that the disciplinary measure was excessively severe. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline, but focused its review on whether the level of discipline was excessively harsh.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where it is acknowledged that the employee violated the rule prohibiting outside work, whether a one‑month suspension is, in light of the degree of intent and the extent of any damage to the company’s reputation, so clearly unreasonable by social norms as to constitute an unfair dismissal due to excessive disciplinary measure.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case recognized the existence of grounds for discipline, noting that the employer’s personnel regulations and reporting guidelines for outside work explicitly prohibit outside work and that the employee did in fact violate these rules. However, considering that it is difficult to view the employee’s outside work as intentional, that there are no circumstances indicating that the outside work actually damaged the reputation of the workplace, and that the Supreme Court has held that, in assessing the legitimacy of the level of discipline, one must comprehensively consider the motive and background of the misconduct, its impact on corporate order, etc., and that only when the measure is clearly unreasonable by social norms is it unlawful,
the panel found that a one‑month suspension, imposed by additionally taking into account a violation of the duty to maintain dignity in relation to the employee’s conduct, constituted an excessively severe sanction.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held to be unfair, on the ground that although the grounds for discipline were recognized, the level of discipline was clearly unreasonable by social norms.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should always check in advance how concurrent employment, side jobs, and outside work are regulated in the company’s personnel regulations, rules of employment, and reporting guidelines for outside work. If discipline is actually imposed, it is necessary to examine the possibility of applying for a remedy for unfair dismissal, focusing on whether there was intent in one’s conduct, whether the company’s reputation or corporate order was actually harmed, and whether the discipline is excessive in light of one’s past work attitude and the overall level of misconduct.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
Employers should establish clear rules prohibiting outside work and reporting guidelines, and sufficiently notify and train employees in advance, so as to secure predictability regarding grounds for discipline. When determining the level of discipline, it is important to set it at a level that will not be evaluated as excessive by social norms, by comprehensively considering the motive and background of the misconduct, whether it was repeated, its specific impact on corporate order and the company’s reputation, and whether any damage has been remedied.
In cases of this type, obtaining assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& enables employers to systematically organize the legal principles on the appropriateness of the level of discipline, separate from the grounds for discipline themselves, and to select and prove the circumstances that the Labor Relations Commission considers important, thereby preventing and responding to unfair dismissal disputes more effectively.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Even though the employer’s personnel regulations and reporting guidelines for outside work prohibit outside work, the employee’s violation of these rules constitutes grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
It is difficult to find that the employee’s violation of the prohibition on outside work was intentional, and there are no circumstances indicating that the employee’s outside work damaged the reputation of the workplace. Therefore, the one‑month suspension, imposed by taking into account a violation of the duty to maintain dignity in determining the level of discipline, is deemed excessively severe.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Even though the employer’s personnel regulations and reporting guidelines for outside work prohibit outside work, the employee’s violation of these rules constitutes grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
It is difficult to find that the employee’s violation of the prohibition on outside work was intentional, and there are no circumstances indicating that the employee’s outside work damaged the reputation of the workplace. Therefore, the one‑month suspension, imposed by taking into account a violation of the duty to maintain dignity in determining the level of discipline, is deemed excessively severe. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Written Notice (Defective Notice of Dismissal)’ Unfair Dismissal Case”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone)’ Unfair Dismissal Case”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Case”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (violation of prohibition on outside work), violation of company policy · noncompliance 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 Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Final Acceptance Notice)’ Unfair Dismissal Case,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (violation of prohibition on outside work) can be found under “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Violation of Prohibition on Outside Work).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
