Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Concurrent Employment · Second‑Hand Trading)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 130)
- Date2026/01/21 04:14
- Read 220
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (concurrent employment · second‑hand trading).”
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employee fully prevailed in an unfair dismissal dispute on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (concurrent employment · second‑hand trading).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae775 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2025.11.14 · Case Result: Fully Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Acts such as arbitrarily selling property and supplies owned or provided by the Corporation, working short‑term without permission for concurrent employment and receiving wages, reselling for profit products purchased through second‑hand trading, and drafting or revising second‑hand sales posts during working hours constitute violations of duties in the course of employment and neglect of duties, and therefore amount to grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee of a public corporation filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission after issues arose from the employee’s acts of arbitrarily selling property and supplies owned or provided by the Corporation, working short‑term without permission for concurrent employment and receiving wages, and reselling for profit products purchased through second‑hand trading. The employee argued that the disciplinary dismissal (removal from office) was an excessively harsh and unfair dismissal, while the employer argued that, in light of multiple instances of misconduct, the dismissal was a legitimate disciplinary measure under the corporation’s rules on rewards and punishments. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the dismissal was unfair and rendered a decision fully upholding the employee’s claim.
In doing so, the Commission separately examined (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and (iii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, with the key point of determination being whether the level of discipline exceeded the employer’s discretionary authority.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where there are multiple instances of misconduct—such as arbitrary sale of corporation property, short‑term work without permission for concurrent employment, and engaging in second‑hand trading activities during working hours—the most severe disciplinary measure of dismissal is socially acceptable and thus whether the level of discipline is appropriate.
Furthermore, even if the grounds for discipline themselves are acknowledged, the question arose whether, in light of the rules on rewards and punishments and the disciplinary standards, the choice of dismissal amounted to an abuse of the disciplinary authority and, accordingly, whether it could be viewed as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case premised its decision on the following: that arbitrarily selling property and supplies owned or provided by the Corporation, working short‑term without permission for concurrent employment and receiving wages, drafting and revising second‑hand sales posts during working hours, and reselling for profit products purchased through second‑hand trading constitute violations of duties in the course of employment and neglect of duties, and thus amount to grounds for discipline; and that there were no particular defects in the disciplinary procedures, as a personnel committee was convened to provide the employee with an opportunity to explain and the disciplinary result was notified in writing.
Nevertheless, taking into comprehensive consideration the degree, fault, and weight of the employee’s misconduct, the content of the disciplinary standards set forth in Article 22 and Appendix 1 of the Corporation’s rules on rewards and punishments, and the case law principle that where a disciplinary measure is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms it must be regarded as an abuse of discretionary authority, the panel found that the dismissal was difficult to deem consistent with the applicable disciplinary standards and was an excessively severe measure that exceeded the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held to be unfair on the ground that, although the grounds and procedures for discipline were recognized, the level of discipline was clearly excessive in light of social norms.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to clearly recognize that, in public corporations and public enterprises, private use or arbitrary sale of corporation property, working externally without permission for concurrent employment, and engaging in profit‑making activities (including second‑hand trading) during working hours can all constitute grounds for discipline. However, even where multiple instances of misconduct are acknowledged, severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal or removal from office are not always justified. Employees can actively contest the excessiveness of the level of discipline based on factors such as the nature, degree, and motive of their conduct, and the balance with the disciplinary standards under the company’s internal rules.
In addition, when given an opportunity to explain before the disciplinary committee, employees should submit concrete information on the facts and circumstances, whether any harm has been remedied, and efforts to prevent recurrence. Such materials can serve as important evidence in subsequent Labor Relations Commission relief procedures in determining whether to mitigate the level of discipline or to recognize the dismissal as unfair.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even if an employee’s misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline, before choosing disciplinary dismissal or removal from office, it is necessary to carefully examine whether the measure is acceptable in light of social norms, taking into comprehensive consideration the disciplinary standards set out in the rules of employment and rules on rewards and punishments, the nature, degree, and frequency of the actual misconduct, and its impact on corporate order. Even where the grounds and procedures for discipline are lawful, if the level of discipline is excessive, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may find an abuse of discretionary authority and rule the dismissal unfair. It is therefore advisable to document comparative consideration of step‑by‑step sanctions such as wage reduction or suspension from duty.
Furthermore, while strictly observing procedural requirements such as convening a personnel committee, giving specific notice of the grounds for discipline, providing an opportunity to explain, and notifying the result in writing, employers should, even in cases involving multiple instances of misconduct, systematically organize both aggravating factors and mitigating factors (such as whether harm has been remedied, work performance, and likelihood of recurrence) so that they can later substantiate the reasonableness of the level of discipline before the Labor Relations Commission.
This unfair dismissal decision clearly illustrates that, even where both the grounds and procedures for discipline are recognized, if the level of discipline is manifestly excessive in light of social norms, the Labor Relations Commission will find the dismissal unfair. Both employees and employers should fully understand the case law principles on the appropriateness of the level of discipline and prepare their response strategies accordingly. By obtaining advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, you can proactively review and manage HR and labor risks, including collective redundancies and disciplinary dismissals.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Acts such as arbitrarily selling property and supplies owned or provided by the Corporation, working short‑term without permission for concurrent employment and receiving wages, reselling for profit products purchased through second‑hand trading, and drafting or revising second‑hand sales posts during working hours constitute violations of duties in the course of employment and neglect of duties, and therefore amount to grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given the degree, fault, and weight of the employee’s misconduct, the employer’s decision to dismiss is difficult to deem consistent with the disciplinary standards set forth in Article 22 and Appendix 1 of the rules on rewards and punishments, and thus is unfair in that it exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Pursuant to the relevant regulations, a personnel committee was convened, the employee was given an opportunity to explain the alleged misconduct, and the disciplinary result was notified in writing. Accordingly, no particular defect in the disciplinary procedures was found.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Acts such as arbitrarily selling property and supplies owned or provided by the Corporation, working short‑term without permission for concurrent employment and receiving wages, reselling for profit products purchased through second‑hand trading, and drafting or revising second‑hand sales posts during working hours constitute violations of duties in the course of employment and neglect of duties, and therefore amount to grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given the degree, fault, and weight of the employee’s misconduct, the employer’s decision to dismiss is difficult to deem consistent with the disciplinary standards set forth in Article 22 and Appendix 1 of the rules on rewards and punishments, and thus is unfair in that it exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Pursuant to the relevant regulations, a personnel committee was convened, the employee was given an opportunity to explain the alleged misconduct, and the disciplinary result was notified in writing. Accordingly, no particular defect in the disciplinary procedures was found. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure of Employment Offer to Materialize (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (concurrent employment · second‑hand trading), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to comply 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, “‘Standing to Sue (Cautionary Measure Disadvantaging Promotion)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (concurrent employment · second‑hand trading) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Concurrent Employment · Second‑Hand Trading).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employee fully prevailed in an unfair dismissal dispute on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (concurrent employment · second‑hand trading).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae775 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2025.11.14 · Case Result: Fully Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Acts such as arbitrarily selling property and supplies owned or provided by the Corporation, working short‑term without permission for concurrent employment and receiving wages, reselling for profit products purchased through second‑hand trading, and drafting or revising second‑hand sales posts during working hours constitute violations of duties in the course of employment and neglect of duties, and therefore amount to grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee of a public corporation filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission after issues arose from the employee’s acts of arbitrarily selling property and supplies owned or provided by the Corporation, working short‑term without permission for concurrent employment and receiving wages, and reselling for profit products purchased through second‑hand trading. The employee argued that the disciplinary dismissal (removal from office) was an excessively harsh and unfair dismissal, while the employer argued that, in light of multiple instances of misconduct, the dismissal was a legitimate disciplinary measure under the corporation’s rules on rewards and punishments. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the dismissal was unfair and rendered a decision fully upholding the employee’s claim.
In doing so, the Commission separately examined (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and (iii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, with the key point of determination being whether the level of discipline exceeded the employer’s discretionary authority.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where there are multiple instances of misconduct—such as arbitrary sale of corporation property, short‑term work without permission for concurrent employment, and engaging in second‑hand trading activities during working hours—the most severe disciplinary measure of dismissal is socially acceptable and thus whether the level of discipline is appropriate.
Furthermore, even if the grounds for discipline themselves are acknowledged, the question arose whether, in light of the rules on rewards and punishments and the disciplinary standards, the choice of dismissal amounted to an abuse of the disciplinary authority and, accordingly, whether it could be viewed as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case premised its decision on the following: that arbitrarily selling property and supplies owned or provided by the Corporation, working short‑term without permission for concurrent employment and receiving wages, drafting and revising second‑hand sales posts during working hours, and reselling for profit products purchased through second‑hand trading constitute violations of duties in the course of employment and neglect of duties, and thus amount to grounds for discipline; and that there were no particular defects in the disciplinary procedures, as a personnel committee was convened to provide the employee with an opportunity to explain and the disciplinary result was notified in writing.
Nevertheless, taking into comprehensive consideration the degree, fault, and weight of the employee’s misconduct, the content of the disciplinary standards set forth in Article 22 and Appendix 1 of the Corporation’s rules on rewards and punishments, and the case law principle that where a disciplinary measure is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms it must be regarded as an abuse of discretionary authority, the panel found that the dismissal was difficult to deem consistent with the applicable disciplinary standards and was an excessively severe measure that exceeded the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held to be unfair on the ground that, although the grounds and procedures for discipline were recognized, the level of discipline was clearly excessive in light of social norms.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to clearly recognize that, in public corporations and public enterprises, private use or arbitrary sale of corporation property, working externally without permission for concurrent employment, and engaging in profit‑making activities (including second‑hand trading) during working hours can all constitute grounds for discipline. However, even where multiple instances of misconduct are acknowledged, severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal or removal from office are not always justified. Employees can actively contest the excessiveness of the level of discipline based on factors such as the nature, degree, and motive of their conduct, and the balance with the disciplinary standards under the company’s internal rules.
In addition, when given an opportunity to explain before the disciplinary committee, employees should submit concrete information on the facts and circumstances, whether any harm has been remedied, and efforts to prevent recurrence. Such materials can serve as important evidence in subsequent Labor Relations Commission relief procedures in determining whether to mitigate the level of discipline or to recognize the dismissal as unfair.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even if an employee’s misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline, before choosing disciplinary dismissal or removal from office, it is necessary to carefully examine whether the measure is acceptable in light of social norms, taking into comprehensive consideration the disciplinary standards set out in the rules of employment and rules on rewards and punishments, the nature, degree, and frequency of the actual misconduct, and its impact on corporate order. Even where the grounds and procedures for discipline are lawful, if the level of discipline is excessive, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may find an abuse of discretionary authority and rule the dismissal unfair. It is therefore advisable to document comparative consideration of step‑by‑step sanctions such as wage reduction or suspension from duty.
Furthermore, while strictly observing procedural requirements such as convening a personnel committee, giving specific notice of the grounds for discipline, providing an opportunity to explain, and notifying the result in writing, employers should, even in cases involving multiple instances of misconduct, systematically organize both aggravating factors and mitigating factors (such as whether harm has been remedied, work performance, and likelihood of recurrence) so that they can later substantiate the reasonableness of the level of discipline before the Labor Relations Commission.
This unfair dismissal decision clearly illustrates that, even where both the grounds and procedures for discipline are recognized, if the level of discipline is manifestly excessive in light of social norms, the Labor Relations Commission will find the dismissal unfair. Both employees and employers should fully understand the case law principles on the appropriateness of the level of discipline and prepare their response strategies accordingly. By obtaining advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, you can proactively review and manage HR and labor risks, including collective redundancies and disciplinary dismissals.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Acts such as arbitrarily selling property and supplies owned or provided by the Corporation, working short‑term without permission for concurrent employment and receiving wages, reselling for profit products purchased through second‑hand trading, and drafting or revising second‑hand sales posts during working hours constitute violations of duties in the course of employment and neglect of duties, and therefore amount to grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given the degree, fault, and weight of the employee’s misconduct, the employer’s decision to dismiss is difficult to deem consistent with the disciplinary standards set forth in Article 22 and Appendix 1 of the rules on rewards and punishments, and thus is unfair in that it exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Pursuant to the relevant regulations, a personnel committee was convened, the employee was given an opportunity to explain the alleged misconduct, and the disciplinary result was notified in writing. Accordingly, no particular defect in the disciplinary procedures was found.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Acts such as arbitrarily selling property and supplies owned or provided by the Corporation, working short‑term without permission for concurrent employment and receiving wages, reselling for profit products purchased through second‑hand trading, and drafting or revising second‑hand sales posts during working hours constitute violations of duties in the course of employment and neglect of duties, and therefore amount to grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given the degree, fault, and weight of the employee’s misconduct, the employer’s decision to dismiss is difficult to deem consistent with the disciplinary standards set forth in Article 22 and Appendix 1 of the rules on rewards and punishments, and thus is unfair in that it exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Pursuant to the relevant regulations, a personnel committee was convened, the employee was given an opportunity to explain the alleged misconduct, and the disciplinary result was notified in writing. Accordingly, no particular defect in the disciplinary procedures was found. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure of Employment Offer to Materialize (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (concurrent employment · second‑hand trading), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to comply 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, “‘Standing to Sue (Cautionary Measure Disadvantaging Promotion)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (concurrent employment · second‑hand trading) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Concurrent Employment · Second‑Hand Trading).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
