Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Eligibility as an Object of Relief (Cautionary Measure Causing Disadvantage in Promotion)” (Unfair Dismissal 129)
- Date2026/01/20 04:13
- Read 228
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “eligibility as an object of relief (cautionary measure causing disadvantage in promotion).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 770 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.14 · Case Result: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Key Issue Summary:
A. Whether the cautionary measure is eligible for an application for relief: Because the cautionary measure caused a disadvantage in promotion, it constitutes an eligible object of relief.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed a “caution” on the employee, and as a result the employee suffered a disadvantage in promotion. The employee then filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal, etc. with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined (i) whether the cautionary measure constituted an object of relief under the Labor Standards Act, and (ii) whether it was an unfair personnel measure taken in violation of disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether a “caution” that entails a restriction on promotion constitutes “other disciplinary action” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act and is therefore subject to an application for relief to the Labor Relations Commission, and whether a caution imposed without following the prescribed procedures, despite the existence of disciplinary rules, can be recognized as a legitimate disciplinary action.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case appears to have focused on the following: that the cautionary measure actually caused personnel and legal disadvantages such as exclusion from promotion or delay in promotion; that there is a trend in case law to interpret “other disciplinary action” under the Labor Standards Act as including personnel measures that impose disadvantages as sanctions regardless of their label; and that there was a procedural violation in imposing the cautionary measure without following the procedures prescribed in the personnel and disciplinary regulations.
In light of these points, the panel likely determined that the caution was not a mere warning or a measure at the level of performance evaluation, but rather a disadvantageous disciplinary sanction subject to an application for relief to the Labor Relations Commission, and that, since the procedures required under the disciplinary regulations were not followed, it could not be regarded as a legitimate disciplinary action.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if a measure is labeled as a “caution,” “warning,” or “disadvantage in performance evaluation,” if there are specific disadvantageous effects prescribed—such as restrictions on promotion or advancement, or reductions in wages or remuneration—you should consider whether you can file an application for relief from unfair dismissal, etc. with the Labor Relations Commission.
Whether the procedures set out in the personnel and disciplinary regulations (such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity to explain) were followed is central to the assessment of the legitimacy of the disciplinary action. If there were procedural violations, it is important to secure evidence that can substantiate those violations with concrete facts.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even relatively minor personnel measures such as “cautions” or “warnings” can become subject to adjudication by the Labor Relations Commission as “other disciplinary action” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act if they are given sanctioning effects such as restrictions on promotion or advancement or disadvantages in evaluation. This should be taken into account when designing internal rules.
If disciplinary regulations are in place, the procedures therein should be applied consistently to all disciplinary-type personnel measures. In actual operation, it is essential for preventing disputes to leave records that can demonstrate procedural fairness, such as clarifying the grounds for discipline, providing an opportunity for explanation, and preparing minutes of meetings.
Such decisions show that not only in cases of unfair dismissal but also in various personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals, placement on standby, and suspension from duty, “disadvantageousness” and “compliance with procedures” are key review criteria. To prevent similar labor and personnel disputes, it is advisable to prepare in advance by refining internal regulations and establishing response strategies in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Eligibility of the Cautionary Measure as an Object of Relief
Because the cautionary measure caused a disadvantage in promotion, it constitutes an object eligible for an application for relief.
B. Legitimacy of the Cautionary Measure
Although the disciplinary regulations required that they be applied, there was a procedural violation in that they were not followed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Eligibility of the Cautionary Measure as an Object of Relief
Because the cautionary measure caused a disadvantage in promotion, it constitutes an object eligible for an application for relief.
B. Legitimacy of the Cautionary Measure
Although the disciplinary regulations required that they be applied, there was a procedural violation in that they were not followed. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Revocation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Reversal After Notifying Reporting Date to Provisionally Successful Applicant)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made Over the Phone)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, eligibility as an object of relief (cautionary measure causing disadvantage in promotion), 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Repeated Traffic Accidents)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to eligibility as an object of relief (cautionary measure causing disadvantage in promotion) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Eligibility as an Object of Relief (Cautionary Measure Causing Disadvantage in Promotion).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “eligibility as an object of relief (cautionary measure causing disadvantage in promotion).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 770 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.14 · Case Result: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Key Issue Summary:
A. Whether the cautionary measure is eligible for an application for relief: Because the cautionary measure caused a disadvantage in promotion, it constitutes an eligible object of relief.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed a “caution” on the employee, and as a result the employee suffered a disadvantage in promotion. The employee then filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal, etc. with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined (i) whether the cautionary measure constituted an object of relief under the Labor Standards Act, and (ii) whether it was an unfair personnel measure taken in violation of disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether a “caution” that entails a restriction on promotion constitutes “other disciplinary action” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act and is therefore subject to an application for relief to the Labor Relations Commission, and whether a caution imposed without following the prescribed procedures, despite the existence of disciplinary rules, can be recognized as a legitimate disciplinary action.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case appears to have focused on the following: that the cautionary measure actually caused personnel and legal disadvantages such as exclusion from promotion or delay in promotion; that there is a trend in case law to interpret “other disciplinary action” under the Labor Standards Act as including personnel measures that impose disadvantages as sanctions regardless of their label; and that there was a procedural violation in imposing the cautionary measure without following the procedures prescribed in the personnel and disciplinary regulations.
In light of these points, the panel likely determined that the caution was not a mere warning or a measure at the level of performance evaluation, but rather a disadvantageous disciplinary sanction subject to an application for relief to the Labor Relations Commission, and that, since the procedures required under the disciplinary regulations were not followed, it could not be regarded as a legitimate disciplinary action.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if a measure is labeled as a “caution,” “warning,” or “disadvantage in performance evaluation,” if there are specific disadvantageous effects prescribed—such as restrictions on promotion or advancement, or reductions in wages or remuneration—you should consider whether you can file an application for relief from unfair dismissal, etc. with the Labor Relations Commission.
Whether the procedures set out in the personnel and disciplinary regulations (such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity to explain) were followed is central to the assessment of the legitimacy of the disciplinary action. If there were procedural violations, it is important to secure evidence that can substantiate those violations with concrete facts.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even relatively minor personnel measures such as “cautions” or “warnings” can become subject to adjudication by the Labor Relations Commission as “other disciplinary action” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act if they are given sanctioning effects such as restrictions on promotion or advancement or disadvantages in evaluation. This should be taken into account when designing internal rules.
If disciplinary regulations are in place, the procedures therein should be applied consistently to all disciplinary-type personnel measures. In actual operation, it is essential for preventing disputes to leave records that can demonstrate procedural fairness, such as clarifying the grounds for discipline, providing an opportunity for explanation, and preparing minutes of meetings.
Such decisions show that not only in cases of unfair dismissal but also in various personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals, placement on standby, and suspension from duty, “disadvantageousness” and “compliance with procedures” are key review criteria. To prevent similar labor and personnel disputes, it is advisable to prepare in advance by refining internal regulations and establishing response strategies in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Eligibility of the Cautionary Measure as an Object of Relief
Because the cautionary measure caused a disadvantage in promotion, it constitutes an object eligible for an application for relief.
B. Legitimacy of the Cautionary Measure
Although the disciplinary regulations required that they be applied, there was a procedural violation in that they were not followed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Eligibility of the Cautionary Measure as an Object of Relief
Because the cautionary measure caused a disadvantage in promotion, it constitutes an object eligible for an application for relief.
B. Legitimacy of the Cautionary Measure
Although the disciplinary regulations required that they be applied, there was a procedural violation in that they were not followed. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Revocation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Reversal After Notifying Reporting Date to Provisionally Successful Applicant)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made Over the Phone)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, eligibility as an object of relief (cautionary measure causing disadvantage in promotion), 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Repeated Traffic Accidents)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to eligibility as an object of relief (cautionary measure causing disadvantage in promotion) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Eligibility as an Object of Relief (Cautionary Measure Causing Disadvantage in Promotion).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
