Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Drunk Driving · Train Operation)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 159)
- Date2026/01/29 04:12
- Read 243
This case is an unfair dismissal decision concerning the issue of “disciplinary severity (drunk driving · train operation)” in which the initial decision was upheld on review.
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent where the dispute over “disciplinary severity (drunk driving · train operation)” concluded with the initial decision being maintained.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1371 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.22 · Case result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct in having his driver’s license revoked for drunk driving, receiving a summary order of a 10 million won fine, and operating a train while his blood alcohol concentration had not yet fully dissipated was found to violate the work rules and personnel regulations, and thus constituted grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the particular nature of the engineer’s duties and the sense of responsibility required of employees of a public corporation, the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as having clearly lost its validity under social norms due to excessive severity.
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case is a re‑examination for remedy of unfair dismissal concerning an engineer employed by a public corporation who was dismissed after his driver’s license was revoked for drunk driving and he operated a train while his blood alcohol concentration had not yet fully dissipated. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for remedy, arguing that the dismissal did not correspond to the grounds for discipline, that the level of discipline was excessive, and that there were defects in the disciplinary procedure, rendering the dismissal unfair.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether the dismissal of an engineer whose driver’s license was revoked for drunk driving and who operated a train while his blood alcohol concentration had not fully dissipated is justified in terms of the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the disciplinary procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee’s driver’s license had been revoked due to drunk driving and that he had received a summary order imposing a fine of 10 million won; that thereafter he operated a train while his blood alcohol concentration had not yet fully dissipated; and that such conduct clearly fell under serious misconduct as defined in the work rules and personnel regulations.
Accordingly, the panel found that the employee’s conduct constituted grounds for discipline.
Furthermore, considering the particular nature of the engineer’s duties, the fact that courts have broadly recognized the legitimacy of dismissal in cases involving traffic accident causation and serious drunk driving by public transportation drivers, the high level of responsibility required of employees of public corporations, and the degree of risk posed to the lives and bodies of the public, the panel held that the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as having clearly lost its validity under social norms.
In addition, the mere fact that the person designated by the labor union to present opinions did not actually attend the disciplinary committee meeting did not, in itself, allow a conclusion that the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the work rules or collective agreement had been violated, nor could it be viewed as a serious procedural defect sufficient to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline. On this basis, the panel found that there was no defect in the disciplinary procedure.
In conclusion, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was not an unfair dismissal, as there were grounds for discipline, the level of discipline was not excessive, and there was no procedural defect in the disciplinary process.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that where drunk driving, license revocation, or driving while blood alcohol concentration has not fully dissipated is directly connected to the employee’s duties, both the Labor Relations Commission and the courts may recognize dismissal as justified. In particular, in occupations involving public transportation or a high risk of major accidents—such as train engineers, bus drivers, and aircraft pilots—even a single instance of serious alcohol‑related misconduct may constitute grounds sufficient to conclude that “the employment relationship cannot be maintained.”
It should also be borne in mind that, even where the labor union participates in the disciplinary process or designates a person to present opinions, the mere fact of non‑attendance or the way the internal proceedings are conducted does not automatically render the disciplinary action null and void. To assert procedural illegality, one must first carefully identify the specific respects in which the procedures prescribed in the work rules or collective agreement were violated.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, it is necessary to clearly define in the work rules and personnel regulations that safety‑related misconduct such as drunk driving, license revocation, and driving under the influence constitutes grounds for discipline, and to specify in concrete terms that, particularly for positions involving public transportation and safety, such misconduct is a “serious ground that may lead to dismissal.” In line with the criteria used to assess the legitimacy of the level of discipline, employers should prepare internal regulations and training materials that explain, in a comprehensive manner, the particular nature of the duties, the nature of the enterprise, and the level of risk, so as to facilitate defense before the Labor Relations Commission.
It is also important to design in advance detailed disciplinary procedures regarding the composition of the disciplinary committee, hearing the labor union’s opinions, and providing an opportunity to make statements, and to keep thorough records of compliance with those procedures when an actual case arises. These records will serve as key evidence to prove the legality of the disciplinary procedure in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute. Accordingly, HR and labor‑relations personnel should regularly review and check the design and operation of these procedures in cooperation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct in having his driver’s license revoked for drunk driving, receiving a summary order imposing a fine of 10 million won, and operating a train while his blood alcohol concentration had not yet fully dissipated was found to violate the work rules and personnel regulations, and thus constituted grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the particular nature of the engineer’s duties and the sense of responsibility required of employees of a public corporation, the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as excessively severe to the extent that it clearly lost its validity under social norms.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Even where the disciplinary action was resolved by a disciplinary committee at which the person designated by the labor union to present opinions did not attend, such disciplinary action could not be deemed null and void on that basis alone, and therefore no procedural defect in the disciplinary process was found to exist.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct in having his driver’s license revoked for drunk driving, receiving a summary order imposing a fine of 10 million won, and operating a train while his blood alcohol concentration had not yet fully dissipated was found to violate the work rules and personnel regulations, and thus constituted grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the particular nature of the engineer’s duties and the sense of responsibility required of employees of a public corporation, the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as excessively severe to the extent that it clearly lost its validity under social norms.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Even where the disciplinary action was resolved by a disciplinary committee at which the person designated by the labor union to present opinions did not attend, such disciplinary action could not be deemed null and void on that basis alone, and therefore no procedural defect in the disciplinary process was found to exist.
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Non‑Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Withdrawal by Agreement of Representative)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (drunk driving · train operation), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Withdrawal by Agreement of Representative),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (drunk driving · train operation) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Drunk Driving · Train Operation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent where the dispute over “disciplinary severity (drunk driving · train operation)” concluded with the initial decision being maintained.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1371 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.22 · Case result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct in having his driver’s license revoked for drunk driving, receiving a summary order of a 10 million won fine, and operating a train while his blood alcohol concentration had not yet fully dissipated was found to violate the work rules and personnel regulations, and thus constituted grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the particular nature of the engineer’s duties and the sense of responsibility required of employees of a public corporation, the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as having clearly lost its validity under social norms due to excessive severity.
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case is a re‑examination for remedy of unfair dismissal concerning an engineer employed by a public corporation who was dismissed after his driver’s license was revoked for drunk driving and he operated a train while his blood alcohol concentration had not yet fully dissipated. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for remedy, arguing that the dismissal did not correspond to the grounds for discipline, that the level of discipline was excessive, and that there were defects in the disciplinary procedure, rendering the dismissal unfair.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether the dismissal of an engineer whose driver’s license was revoked for drunk driving and who operated a train while his blood alcohol concentration had not fully dissipated is justified in terms of the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the disciplinary procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee’s driver’s license had been revoked due to drunk driving and that he had received a summary order imposing a fine of 10 million won; that thereafter he operated a train while his blood alcohol concentration had not yet fully dissipated; and that such conduct clearly fell under serious misconduct as defined in the work rules and personnel regulations.
Accordingly, the panel found that the employee’s conduct constituted grounds for discipline.
Furthermore, considering the particular nature of the engineer’s duties, the fact that courts have broadly recognized the legitimacy of dismissal in cases involving traffic accident causation and serious drunk driving by public transportation drivers, the high level of responsibility required of employees of public corporations, and the degree of risk posed to the lives and bodies of the public, the panel held that the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as having clearly lost its validity under social norms.
In addition, the mere fact that the person designated by the labor union to present opinions did not actually attend the disciplinary committee meeting did not, in itself, allow a conclusion that the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the work rules or collective agreement had been violated, nor could it be viewed as a serious procedural defect sufficient to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline. On this basis, the panel found that there was no defect in the disciplinary procedure.
In conclusion, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was not an unfair dismissal, as there were grounds for discipline, the level of discipline was not excessive, and there was no procedural defect in the disciplinary process.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that where drunk driving, license revocation, or driving while blood alcohol concentration has not fully dissipated is directly connected to the employee’s duties, both the Labor Relations Commission and the courts may recognize dismissal as justified. In particular, in occupations involving public transportation or a high risk of major accidents—such as train engineers, bus drivers, and aircraft pilots—even a single instance of serious alcohol‑related misconduct may constitute grounds sufficient to conclude that “the employment relationship cannot be maintained.”
It should also be borne in mind that, even where the labor union participates in the disciplinary process or designates a person to present opinions, the mere fact of non‑attendance or the way the internal proceedings are conducted does not automatically render the disciplinary action null and void. To assert procedural illegality, one must first carefully identify the specific respects in which the procedures prescribed in the work rules or collective agreement were violated.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, it is necessary to clearly define in the work rules and personnel regulations that safety‑related misconduct such as drunk driving, license revocation, and driving under the influence constitutes grounds for discipline, and to specify in concrete terms that, particularly for positions involving public transportation and safety, such misconduct is a “serious ground that may lead to dismissal.” In line with the criteria used to assess the legitimacy of the level of discipline, employers should prepare internal regulations and training materials that explain, in a comprehensive manner, the particular nature of the duties, the nature of the enterprise, and the level of risk, so as to facilitate defense before the Labor Relations Commission.
It is also important to design in advance detailed disciplinary procedures regarding the composition of the disciplinary committee, hearing the labor union’s opinions, and providing an opportunity to make statements, and to keep thorough records of compliance with those procedures when an actual case arises. These records will serve as key evidence to prove the legality of the disciplinary procedure in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute. Accordingly, HR and labor‑relations personnel should regularly review and check the design and operation of these procedures in cooperation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct in having his driver’s license revoked for drunk driving, receiving a summary order imposing a fine of 10 million won, and operating a train while his blood alcohol concentration had not yet fully dissipated was found to violate the work rules and personnel regulations, and thus constituted grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the particular nature of the engineer’s duties and the sense of responsibility required of employees of a public corporation, the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as excessively severe to the extent that it clearly lost its validity under social norms.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Even where the disciplinary action was resolved by a disciplinary committee at which the person designated by the labor union to present opinions did not attend, such disciplinary action could not be deemed null and void on that basis alone, and therefore no procedural defect in the disciplinary process was found to exist.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct in having his driver’s license revoked for drunk driving, receiving a summary order imposing a fine of 10 million won, and operating a train while his blood alcohol concentration had not yet fully dissipated was found to violate the work rules and personnel regulations, and thus constituted grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the particular nature of the engineer’s duties and the sense of responsibility required of employees of a public corporation, the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as excessively severe to the extent that it clearly lost its validity under social norms.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Even where the disciplinary action was resolved by a disciplinary committee at which the person designated by the labor union to present opinions did not attend, such disciplinary action could not be deemed null and void on that basis alone, and therefore no procedural defect in the disciplinary process was found to exist.
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Non‑Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Withdrawal by Agreement of Representative)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (drunk driving · train operation), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Withdrawal by Agreement of Representative),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (drunk driving · train operation) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Drunk Driving · Train Operation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
