Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Traffic Accidents)” (Unfair Dismissal 128)
- Date2026/01/20 04:09
- Read 235
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (repeated traffic accidents).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal3655 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.14 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since it is acknowledged that the worker caused accidents that meet the number of traffic accidents and damage amount thresholds prescribed in the rules of employment, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The conduct falls under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in the rules of employment, and the employer has, without exception, imposed disciplinary dismissal for the same type of misconduct in the past. Therefore, it is difficult to view the level of disciplinary dismissal as excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
[Omitted in the summary box but addressed in detail below.]
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, a worker engaged in what appears to be transportation/driving duties was dismissed for cause on disciplinary grounds due to repeated traffic accidents and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the worker’s application for remedy, taking into comprehensive account the traffic-accident-related disciplinary criteria in the rules of employment, the company’s established disciplinary practice, and whether the procedures of the disciplinary committee were followed.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where the rules of employment stipulate criteria for the number of traffic accidents and the amount of damage, and the company has consistently imposed disciplinary dismissal for the same type of misconduct, whether the disciplinary dismissal in this case is justified in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) level of discipline, and (iii) disciplinary procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the worker in fact caused accidents that meet the number of traffic accidents and damage amount thresholds set out in the rules of employment; that these grounds are expressly stipulated as grounds for disciplinary dismissal in the rules of employment; that the company has, without exception, imposed disciplinary dismissal for the same type of misconduct; and that the employer complied with the procedures by notifying the worker of the scheduled convening of the disciplinary committee and affording the worker an opportunity to explain by having him appear before both the initial and the appellate disciplinary committees.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was based on existing grounds for discipline, that the level of discipline (dismissal) could not be regarded as manifestly excessive in light of social norms, and that the disciplinary procedures were lawfully carried out in accordance with the rules of employment and other applicable provisions.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, it should be noted that where repeated traffic or safety accidents are stipulated in the rules of employment as grounds for disciplinary dismissal, and where the company has in practice dismissed employees under the same criteria, it is not easy to have such a dismissal recognized as unfair by the Labor Relations Commission.
However, if you intend to challenge the dismissal as excessively harsh, you will need to specifically organize and present facts such as the degree of your negligence, the circumstances of the accidents, your efforts to remedy the damage, and your past work attitude, and actively argue and prove that the level of discipline is unduly severe in light of social norms.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment the grounds and criteria (number of incidents, amount of damage, etc.) for discipline in relation to traffic accidents and other safety-related misconduct, and to apply those criteria consistently and without exception in actual cases.
In addition, by faithfully implementing and documenting the disciplinary procedures—such as notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee, providing an opportunity for explanation, and operating an appellate review procedure—you increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will recognize the legitimacy of the grounds, level, and procedures of the discipline.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since it is acknowledged that the worker caused accidents that meet the number of traffic accidents and damage amount thresholds prescribed in the rules of employment, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The conduct falls under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in the rules of employment, and the employer has, without exception, imposed disciplinary dismissal for this type of misconduct in the past. Therefore, it is difficult to view the level of disciplinary dismissal as excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employer notified the worker of the scheduled convening of the disciplinary committee, and the worker appeared before both the initial and the appellate disciplinary committees and was afforded an opportunity to explain. Accordingly, the procedures were lawfully carried out in accordance with the rules of employment and other applicable provisions.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since it is acknowledged that the worker caused accidents that meet the number of traffic accidents and damage amount thresholds prescribed in the rules of employment, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The conduct falls under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in the rules of employment, and the employer has, without exception, imposed disciplinary dismissal for this type of misconduct in the past. Therefore, it is difficult to view the level of disciplinary dismissal as excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employer notified the worker of the scheduled convening of the disciplinary committee, and the worker appeared before both the initial and the appellate disciplinary committees and was afforded an opportunity to explain. Accordingly, the procedures were lawfully carried out in accordance with the rules of employment and other applicable provisions. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Revocation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Reversal After Notifying Preliminary Successful Applicant of Start Date)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (repeated traffic accidents), disciplinary dismissal, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Revocation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Reversal After Notifying Preliminary Successful Applicant of Start Date)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (repeated traffic accidents) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Traffic Accidents).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (repeated traffic accidents).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal3655 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.14 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since it is acknowledged that the worker caused accidents that meet the number of traffic accidents and damage amount thresholds prescribed in the rules of employment, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The conduct falls under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in the rules of employment, and the employer has, without exception, imposed disciplinary dismissal for the same type of misconduct in the past. Therefore, it is difficult to view the level of disciplinary dismissal as excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
[Omitted in the summary box but addressed in detail below.]
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, a worker engaged in what appears to be transportation/driving duties was dismissed for cause on disciplinary grounds due to repeated traffic accidents and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the worker’s application for remedy, taking into comprehensive account the traffic-accident-related disciplinary criteria in the rules of employment, the company’s established disciplinary practice, and whether the procedures of the disciplinary committee were followed.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where the rules of employment stipulate criteria for the number of traffic accidents and the amount of damage, and the company has consistently imposed disciplinary dismissal for the same type of misconduct, whether the disciplinary dismissal in this case is justified in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) level of discipline, and (iii) disciplinary procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the worker in fact caused accidents that meet the number of traffic accidents and damage amount thresholds set out in the rules of employment; that these grounds are expressly stipulated as grounds for disciplinary dismissal in the rules of employment; that the company has, without exception, imposed disciplinary dismissal for the same type of misconduct; and that the employer complied with the procedures by notifying the worker of the scheduled convening of the disciplinary committee and affording the worker an opportunity to explain by having him appear before both the initial and the appellate disciplinary committees.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was based on existing grounds for discipline, that the level of discipline (dismissal) could not be regarded as manifestly excessive in light of social norms, and that the disciplinary procedures were lawfully carried out in accordance with the rules of employment and other applicable provisions.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, it should be noted that where repeated traffic or safety accidents are stipulated in the rules of employment as grounds for disciplinary dismissal, and where the company has in practice dismissed employees under the same criteria, it is not easy to have such a dismissal recognized as unfair by the Labor Relations Commission.
However, if you intend to challenge the dismissal as excessively harsh, you will need to specifically organize and present facts such as the degree of your negligence, the circumstances of the accidents, your efforts to remedy the damage, and your past work attitude, and actively argue and prove that the level of discipline is unduly severe in light of social norms.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment the grounds and criteria (number of incidents, amount of damage, etc.) for discipline in relation to traffic accidents and other safety-related misconduct, and to apply those criteria consistently and without exception in actual cases.
In addition, by faithfully implementing and documenting the disciplinary procedures—such as notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee, providing an opportunity for explanation, and operating an appellate review procedure—you increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will recognize the legitimacy of the grounds, level, and procedures of the discipline.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since it is acknowledged that the worker caused accidents that meet the number of traffic accidents and damage amount thresholds prescribed in the rules of employment, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The conduct falls under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in the rules of employment, and the employer has, without exception, imposed disciplinary dismissal for this type of misconduct in the past. Therefore, it is difficult to view the level of disciplinary dismissal as excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employer notified the worker of the scheduled convening of the disciplinary committee, and the worker appeared before both the initial and the appellate disciplinary committees and was afforded an opportunity to explain. Accordingly, the procedures were lawfully carried out in accordance with the rules of employment and other applicable provisions.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since it is acknowledged that the worker caused accidents that meet the number of traffic accidents and damage amount thresholds prescribed in the rules of employment, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The conduct falls under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in the rules of employment, and the employer has, without exception, imposed disciplinary dismissal for this type of misconduct in the past. Therefore, it is difficult to view the level of disciplinary dismissal as excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
The employer notified the worker of the scheduled convening of the disciplinary committee, and the worker appeared before both the initial and the appellate disciplinary committees and was afforded an opportunity to explain. Accordingly, the procedures were lawfully carried out in accordance with the rules of employment and other applicable provisions. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Revocation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Reversal After Notifying Preliminary Successful Applicant of Start Date)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (repeated traffic accidents), disciplinary dismissal, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Revocation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Reversal After Notifying Preliminary Successful Applicant of Start Date)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (repeated traffic accidents) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Traffic Accidents).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
