Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Unauthorized Use of Meat and Beverages for Sale)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 156)
- Date2026/01/28 04:13
- Read 238
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized use of meat and beverages for sale).”
Adjudicating body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9018 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.22 · Disposition: Fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employees’ acts on 30 September 2025 and 5 October 2025 of taking meat intended for sale and of drinking beverages intended for sale without permission were recognized as grounds for discipline, but the remaining alleged misconduct was not deemed to constitute grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, employees working at the Bupyeong branch of a restaurant were subjected to disciplinary dismissal by the employer on the grounds that they took meat intended for sale out of the premises and drank beverages intended for sale without permission, after which they filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged some of the misconduct, but also examined the justification and procedure of the dismissal, as well as whether a monetary compensation order (payment of wages in lieu of reinstatement) should be issued following the subsequent closure of the business.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether, in a situation where misconduct involving unauthorized use of goods intended for sale is established, the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the disciplinary procedures are all justified, and whether, even when reinstatement has become impossible due to subsequent closure of the business, the employer must still pay the employees an amount equivalent to wages by way of a monetary compensation order.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employees’ acts of taking meat intended for sale and drinking beverages intended for sale without permission did constitute grounds for discipline; however, the other alleged misconduct asserted by the employer did not amount to grounds for discipline. It further held that, even if some grounds for discipline were recognized, the choice of the most severe sanction—dismissal—was markedly excessive by social standards and constituted an abuse and overstepping of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline.
Accordingly, despite the existence of some grounds for discipline, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case constituted unfair dismissal because the level of discipline was excessively severe.
In addition, the Bupyeong branch was a workplace with fewer than 10 employees on a regular basis and had no work rules in place. Given that the employer had provided written notice stating the grounds and timing of the dismissal in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the Commission found that, in the absence of separate provisions on disciplinary procedures, there was no procedural defect.
Furthermore, where the business has closed and it has become practically impossible for the employees to provide labor, claims for wages for a long period after the dismissal are, in principle, restricted. However, in this case, the Commission regarded the 70 days from the date of the unfair dismissal to the date of its decision as a period of unfair dismissal attributable to the employer, and issued a monetary compensation order directing the employer to pay each employee KRW 6,391,280, equivalent to wages for that period. This reflects the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence that, although wages for the period during which the dismissal is invalid are, in principle, payable in full under Article 538 of the Civil Act, once it becomes impossible to provide labor—such as due to business closure—the employer’s fault ceases from that point, and additional wage claims are restricted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even if some misconduct—such as unauthorized use of goods intended for sale—is acknowledged, this does not automatically justify dismissal. If the level of discipline is markedly excessive by social standards, the Labor Relations Commission may still find the dismissal to be unfair. However, where reinstatement is no longer possible due to business closure, employees cannot receive wages equivalent to the entire period after dismissal. Therefore, if you believe you have been unfairly dismissed, you should promptly file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission without delay.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even when misconduct such as unauthorized use of goods intended for sale occurs, you must carefully consider all relevant circumstances—such as the specific context of the acts, the amount and frequency involved, the employee’s work attitude, and any past disciplinary history—to determine whether workplace order can be maintained through less severe sanctions such as pay cuts or suspension, rather than dismissal. In particular, even if there are no work rules because the workplace regularly employs fewer than 10 employees, written notice specifying the grounds and timing of the dismissal is mandatory. If the dismissal is found to be unfair, you may be required to pay wages equivalent to a certain period regardless of business closure. Accordingly, you should thoroughly review in advance the appropriateness of the disciplinary level and the sufficiency of evidence.
This decision of the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission is significant in that it confirms that, even where some grounds for discipline are recognized, an excessively severe level of discipline may still be found to constitute unfair dismissal, and that it faithfully reflects the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the scope of wages equivalent to the period of unfair dismissal in cases of business closure. It therefore offers important guidance to both employees and employers seeking to prevent and prepare for disputes over unfair dismissal and redundancy. Given that professional representation is often required in Labor Relations Commission proceedings, in similar cases you are advised to seek early advice from a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employees’ acts on 30 September 2025 and 5 October 2025 of taking meat intended for sale and of drinking beverages intended for sale without permission were recognized as grounds for discipline, but the remaining alleged misconduct was not deemed to constitute grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Although some of the employees’ misconduct, such as taking meat out of the premises, was recognized, imposing the most severe sanction of dismissal exceeded the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The employees argued that there were procedural defects, such as the employer’s failure to provide an opportunity for explanation. However, because the Bupyeong branch was a workplace with fewer than 10 employees on a regular basis and had no work rules, and because the employer complied with the requirement of written notice of dismissal, there was no procedural defect.
D. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
Because labor could no longer be provided due to the closure of the business, the employer was ordered to pay each employee KRW 6,391,280, equivalent to wages for the 70 days from the date of dismissal (14 October 2025) to the date of the decision (22 December 2025).
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employees’ acts on 30 September 2025 and 5 October 2025 of taking meat intended for sale and of drinking beverages intended for sale without permission were recognized as grounds for discipline, but the remaining alleged misconduct was not deemed to constitute grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Although some of the employees’ misconduct, such as taking meat out of the premises, was recognized, imposing the most severe sanction of dismissal exceeded the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The employees argued that there were procedural defects, such as the employer’s failure to provide an opportunity for explanation. However, because the Bupyeong branch was a workplace with fewer than 10 employees on a regular basis and had no work rules, and because the employer complied with the requirement of written notice of dismissal, there was no procedural defect.
D. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
Because labor could no longer be provided due to the closure of the business, the employer was ordered to pay each employee KRW 6,391,280, equivalent to wages for the 70 days from the date of dismissal (14 October 2025) to the date of the decision (22 December 2025). /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Transfer Order (Guidelines on Management of Employees with Illness or Health Problems)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Probationary Dismissal (Notice of Refusal of Regular Employment after Three-Month Probation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized use of meat and beverages for sale), 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 of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Transfer Order (Guidelines on Management of Employees with Illness or Health Problems)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized use of meat and beverages for sale) on the “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Unauthorized Use of Meat and Beverages for Sale) Related Decisions” page.
※ 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 (unauthorized use of meat and beverages for sale).”
Adjudicating body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9018 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.22 · Disposition: Fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employees’ acts on 30 September 2025 and 5 October 2025 of taking meat intended for sale and of drinking beverages intended for sale without permission were recognized as grounds for discipline, but the remaining alleged misconduct was not deemed to constitute grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, employees working at the Bupyeong branch of a restaurant were subjected to disciplinary dismissal by the employer on the grounds that they took meat intended for sale out of the premises and drank beverages intended for sale without permission, after which they filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged some of the misconduct, but also examined the justification and procedure of the dismissal, as well as whether a monetary compensation order (payment of wages in lieu of reinstatement) should be issued following the subsequent closure of the business.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether, in a situation where misconduct involving unauthorized use of goods intended for sale is established, the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the disciplinary procedures are all justified, and whether, even when reinstatement has become impossible due to subsequent closure of the business, the employer must still pay the employees an amount equivalent to wages by way of a monetary compensation order.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employees’ acts of taking meat intended for sale and drinking beverages intended for sale without permission did constitute grounds for discipline; however, the other alleged misconduct asserted by the employer did not amount to grounds for discipline. It further held that, even if some grounds for discipline were recognized, the choice of the most severe sanction—dismissal—was markedly excessive by social standards and constituted an abuse and overstepping of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline.
Accordingly, despite the existence of some grounds for discipline, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case constituted unfair dismissal because the level of discipline was excessively severe.
In addition, the Bupyeong branch was a workplace with fewer than 10 employees on a regular basis and had no work rules in place. Given that the employer had provided written notice stating the grounds and timing of the dismissal in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the Commission found that, in the absence of separate provisions on disciplinary procedures, there was no procedural defect.
Furthermore, where the business has closed and it has become practically impossible for the employees to provide labor, claims for wages for a long period after the dismissal are, in principle, restricted. However, in this case, the Commission regarded the 70 days from the date of the unfair dismissal to the date of its decision as a period of unfair dismissal attributable to the employer, and issued a monetary compensation order directing the employer to pay each employee KRW 6,391,280, equivalent to wages for that period. This reflects the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence that, although wages for the period during which the dismissal is invalid are, in principle, payable in full under Article 538 of the Civil Act, once it becomes impossible to provide labor—such as due to business closure—the employer’s fault ceases from that point, and additional wage claims are restricted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even if some misconduct—such as unauthorized use of goods intended for sale—is acknowledged, this does not automatically justify dismissal. If the level of discipline is markedly excessive by social standards, the Labor Relations Commission may still find the dismissal to be unfair. However, where reinstatement is no longer possible due to business closure, employees cannot receive wages equivalent to the entire period after dismissal. Therefore, if you believe you have been unfairly dismissed, you should promptly file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission without delay.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even when misconduct such as unauthorized use of goods intended for sale occurs, you must carefully consider all relevant circumstances—such as the specific context of the acts, the amount and frequency involved, the employee’s work attitude, and any past disciplinary history—to determine whether workplace order can be maintained through less severe sanctions such as pay cuts or suspension, rather than dismissal. In particular, even if there are no work rules because the workplace regularly employs fewer than 10 employees, written notice specifying the grounds and timing of the dismissal is mandatory. If the dismissal is found to be unfair, you may be required to pay wages equivalent to a certain period regardless of business closure. Accordingly, you should thoroughly review in advance the appropriateness of the disciplinary level and the sufficiency of evidence.
This decision of the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission is significant in that it confirms that, even where some grounds for discipline are recognized, an excessively severe level of discipline may still be found to constitute unfair dismissal, and that it faithfully reflects the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the scope of wages equivalent to the period of unfair dismissal in cases of business closure. It therefore offers important guidance to both employees and employers seeking to prevent and prepare for disputes over unfair dismissal and redundancy. Given that professional representation is often required in Labor Relations Commission proceedings, in similar cases you are advised to seek early advice from a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employees’ acts on 30 September 2025 and 5 October 2025 of taking meat intended for sale and of drinking beverages intended for sale without permission were recognized as grounds for discipline, but the remaining alleged misconduct was not deemed to constitute grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Although some of the employees’ misconduct, such as taking meat out of the premises, was recognized, imposing the most severe sanction of dismissal exceeded the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The employees argued that there were procedural defects, such as the employer’s failure to provide an opportunity for explanation. However, because the Bupyeong branch was a workplace with fewer than 10 employees on a regular basis and had no work rules, and because the employer complied with the requirement of written notice of dismissal, there was no procedural defect.
D. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
Because labor could no longer be provided due to the closure of the business, the employer was ordered to pay each employee KRW 6,391,280, equivalent to wages for the 70 days from the date of dismissal (14 October 2025) to the date of the decision (22 December 2025).
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employees’ acts on 30 September 2025 and 5 October 2025 of taking meat intended for sale and of drinking beverages intended for sale without permission were recognized as grounds for discipline, but the remaining alleged misconduct was not deemed to constitute grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Although some of the employees’ misconduct, such as taking meat out of the premises, was recognized, imposing the most severe sanction of dismissal exceeded the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The employees argued that there were procedural defects, such as the employer’s failure to provide an opportunity for explanation. However, because the Bupyeong branch was a workplace with fewer than 10 employees on a regular basis and had no work rules, and because the employer complied with the requirement of written notice of dismissal, there was no procedural defect.
D. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
Because labor could no longer be provided due to the closure of the business, the employer was ordered to pay each employee KRW 6,391,280, equivalent to wages for the 70 days from the date of dismissal (14 October 2025) to the date of the decision (22 December 2025). /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Transfer Order (Guidelines on Management of Employees with Illness or Health Problems)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Probationary Dismissal (Notice of Refusal of Regular Employment after Three-Month Probation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized use of meat and beverages for sale), 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 of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Transfer Order (Guidelines on Management of Employees with Illness or Health Problems)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized use of meat and beverages for sale) on the “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Unauthorized Use of Meat and Beverages for Sale) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
