Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Overseas Travel During Sick Leave)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 125)
- Date2026/01/19 04:09
- Read 237
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (overseas travel during sick leave).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal 3324 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.11.14 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The sick leave used by the employee did not constitute “false sick leave.” However, there was no material showing that the employee treated the illness stated in the medical opinion and medical certificate through the overseas trip, and, as a rule, it is difficult to regard overseas travel itself as having a direct causal relationship with treatment. Accordingly, the employee’s overseas travel during the sick leave period constituted “use for a purpose other than sick leave,” which falls under a ground for discipline pursuant to the rules of employment and personnel regulations.
B. … (omitted in the original text)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer imposed dismissal (termination) on the employee on the ground that the employee went on an overseas trip during a period of sick leave, and the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline, but focused on the appropriateness of the level of discipline (disciplinary measure) in determining whether the dismissal was justified.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Even if going on an overseas trip during a period of sick leave constitutes a ground for discipline, whether dismissal as a disciplinary measure based solely on that ground is, in light of social norms, an appropriate level of discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, although the employee’s sick leave could not be regarded as “false sick leave,” the overseas trip during the sick leave period constituted use for a purpose other than sick leave and therefore fell under a ground for discipline under the rules of employment. Nevertheless, the rules of employment distinguish between minor and major disciplinary measures for breaches of the duty of good faith, depending on the qualitative nature of the misconduct, while the employer, instead, created and applied its own standard that classified minor and major disciplinary measures solely based on the “number of days” of improper use of sick leave. The panel held that this disciplinary standard lacked reasonableness, that even under this standard the employee’s conduct did not rise to the level warranting dismissal, and that there were mitigating factors such as the employee’s prior commendations.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair, as the level of discipline was markedly excessive in light of social norms and constituted an abuse of the employer’s discretion in imposing discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should always keep in mind that the purpose of sick leave is “treatment and recuperation.” In particular, activities such as overseas travel or long-distance trips, for which it is objectively difficult to explain any connection with treatment, may later be assessed as “use for a purpose other than sick leave.” Therefore, where there are unavoidable circumstances, it is necessary to prepare in advance evidentiary materials such as medical opinions and an explanation of the course of treatment.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
When establishing disciplinary standards related to improper use of sick leave, companies should not rely solely on the number of days or other formal elements, but should prepare reasonable standards for determining the level of discipline that comprehensively reflect various factors, such as the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, its impact on corporate order, and the employee’s past work attitude and history of commendations and discipline. Employers should also fully consider the Supreme Court’s and Labor Relations Commission’s legal principles that disciplinary dismissal is limited to serious grounds such that continuation of the employment relationship is impossible in light of social norms, and should bear in mind that, even in similar cases, reviewing the possibility of minor disciplinary measures first and proceeding step by step is the way to reduce labor-relations risk.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The sick leave used by the employee did not constitute “false sick leave.” However, there was no material showing that the employee treated the illness stated in the medical opinion and medical certificate through the overseas trip, and, as a rule, it is difficult to regard overseas travel itself as having a direct causal relationship with treatment. Accordingly, the employee’s overseas travel during the sick leave period constituted “use for a purpose other than sick leave,” which falls under a ground for discipline pursuant to the rules of employment and personnel regulations.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Although the rules of employment distinguish between minor and major disciplinary measures for breaches of the duty of good faith depending on the qualitative nature of the misconduct, the employer prepared and applied a standard that distinguishes between minor and major disciplinary measures solely based on the number of days of improper use of sick leave. It is difficult to find this standard for determining the level of discipline to be reasonable. Even under the employer’s own standard, the employee’s misconduct does not fall under “dismissal,” and, in light of the fact that the employee had received commendations that constitute grounds for mitigation of discipline, the dismissal was an excessive level of discipline and therefore unfair.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
The employer afforded the employee an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and present explanations, and notified the disciplinary result in writing. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were found to have been observed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The sick leave used by the employee did not constitute “false sick leave.” However, there was no material showing that the employee treated the illness stated in the medical opinion and medical certificate through the overseas trip, and, as a rule, it is difficult to regard overseas travel itself as having a direct causal relationship with treatment. Accordingly, the employee’s overseas travel during the sick leave period constituted “use for a purpose other than sick leave,” which falls under a ground for discipline pursuant to the rules of employment and personnel regulations.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Although the rules of employment distinguish between minor and major disciplinary measures for breaches of the duty of good faith depending on the qualitative nature of the misconduct, the employer prepared and applied a standard that distinguishes between minor and major disciplinary measures solely based on the number of days of improper use of sick leave. It is difficult to find this standard for determining the level of discipline to be reasonable. Even under the employer’s own standard, the employee’s misconduct does not fall under “dismissal,” and, in light of the fact that the employee had received commendations that constitute grounds for mitigation of discipline, the dismissal was an excessive level of discipline and therefore unfair.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
The employer afforded the employee an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and present explanations, and notified the disciplinary result in writing. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were found to have been observed.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Disciplinary Measure (Sexual Harassment and Bullying at a Private School)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (overseas travel during sick leave), disciplinary dismissal, 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Disciplinary Measure (Sexual Harassment and Bullying at a Private School)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (overseas travel during sick leave) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Overseas Travel During Sick Leave).”
※ 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 (overseas travel during sick leave).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal 3324 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.11.14 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The sick leave used by the employee did not constitute “false sick leave.” However, there was no material showing that the employee treated the illness stated in the medical opinion and medical certificate through the overseas trip, and, as a rule, it is difficult to regard overseas travel itself as having a direct causal relationship with treatment. Accordingly, the employee’s overseas travel during the sick leave period constituted “use for a purpose other than sick leave,” which falls under a ground for discipline pursuant to the rules of employment and personnel regulations.
B. … (omitted in the original text)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer imposed dismissal (termination) on the employee on the ground that the employee went on an overseas trip during a period of sick leave, and the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline, but focused on the appropriateness of the level of discipline (disciplinary measure) in determining whether the dismissal was justified.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Even if going on an overseas trip during a period of sick leave constitutes a ground for discipline, whether dismissal as a disciplinary measure based solely on that ground is, in light of social norms, an appropriate level of discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, although the employee’s sick leave could not be regarded as “false sick leave,” the overseas trip during the sick leave period constituted use for a purpose other than sick leave and therefore fell under a ground for discipline under the rules of employment. Nevertheless, the rules of employment distinguish between minor and major disciplinary measures for breaches of the duty of good faith, depending on the qualitative nature of the misconduct, while the employer, instead, created and applied its own standard that classified minor and major disciplinary measures solely based on the “number of days” of improper use of sick leave. The panel held that this disciplinary standard lacked reasonableness, that even under this standard the employee’s conduct did not rise to the level warranting dismissal, and that there were mitigating factors such as the employee’s prior commendations.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair, as the level of discipline was markedly excessive in light of social norms and constituted an abuse of the employer’s discretion in imposing discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should always keep in mind that the purpose of sick leave is “treatment and recuperation.” In particular, activities such as overseas travel or long-distance trips, for which it is objectively difficult to explain any connection with treatment, may later be assessed as “use for a purpose other than sick leave.” Therefore, where there are unavoidable circumstances, it is necessary to prepare in advance evidentiary materials such as medical opinions and an explanation of the course of treatment.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
When establishing disciplinary standards related to improper use of sick leave, companies should not rely solely on the number of days or other formal elements, but should prepare reasonable standards for determining the level of discipline that comprehensively reflect various factors, such as the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, its impact on corporate order, and the employee’s past work attitude and history of commendations and discipline. Employers should also fully consider the Supreme Court’s and Labor Relations Commission’s legal principles that disciplinary dismissal is limited to serious grounds such that continuation of the employment relationship is impossible in light of social norms, and should bear in mind that, even in similar cases, reviewing the possibility of minor disciplinary measures first and proceeding step by step is the way to reduce labor-relations risk.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The sick leave used by the employee did not constitute “false sick leave.” However, there was no material showing that the employee treated the illness stated in the medical opinion and medical certificate through the overseas trip, and, as a rule, it is difficult to regard overseas travel itself as having a direct causal relationship with treatment. Accordingly, the employee’s overseas travel during the sick leave period constituted “use for a purpose other than sick leave,” which falls under a ground for discipline pursuant to the rules of employment and personnel regulations.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Although the rules of employment distinguish between minor and major disciplinary measures for breaches of the duty of good faith depending on the qualitative nature of the misconduct, the employer prepared and applied a standard that distinguishes between minor and major disciplinary measures solely based on the number of days of improper use of sick leave. It is difficult to find this standard for determining the level of discipline to be reasonable. Even under the employer’s own standard, the employee’s misconduct does not fall under “dismissal,” and, in light of the fact that the employee had received commendations that constitute grounds for mitigation of discipline, the dismissal was an excessive level of discipline and therefore unfair.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
The employer afforded the employee an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and present explanations, and notified the disciplinary result in writing. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were found to have been observed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The sick leave used by the employee did not constitute “false sick leave.” However, there was no material showing that the employee treated the illness stated in the medical opinion and medical certificate through the overseas trip, and, as a rule, it is difficult to regard overseas travel itself as having a direct causal relationship with treatment. Accordingly, the employee’s overseas travel during the sick leave period constituted “use for a purpose other than sick leave,” which falls under a ground for discipline pursuant to the rules of employment and personnel regulations.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Although the rules of employment distinguish between minor and major disciplinary measures for breaches of the duty of good faith depending on the qualitative nature of the misconduct, the employer prepared and applied a standard that distinguishes between minor and major disciplinary measures solely based on the number of days of improper use of sick leave. It is difficult to find this standard for determining the level of discipline to be reasonable. Even under the employer’s own standard, the employee’s misconduct does not fall under “dismissal,” and, in light of the fact that the employee had received commendations that constitute grounds for mitigation of discipline, the dismissal was an excessive level of discipline and therefore unfair.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
The employer afforded the employee an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and present explanations, and notified the disciplinary result in writing. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were found to have been observed.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Disciplinary Measure (Sexual Harassment and Bullying at a Private School)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (overseas travel during sick leave), disciplinary dismissal, 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Disciplinary Measure (Sexual Harassment and Bullying at a Private School)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (overseas travel during sick leave) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Overseas Travel During Sick Leave).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
