Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Watchtower Post Laptop·Game)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 162)
- Date2026/01/30 04:14
- Read 228
[Case Information]
This case is a labor commission decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (watchtower post laptop·game).”
Adjudicating body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae211 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2025.12.18 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
The grounds for discipline in this case were limited to the employee’s bringing in a personal laptop and using it for private purposes during working hours. The prior disciplinary action (January 2025), which the employee claimed meant he had “already been disciplined,” was based on a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and thus concerned different misconduct. Accordingly, this case did not constitute double punishment.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns a labor commission decision on an employee who, while working at a watchtower post, brought in a personal laptop and used tethering during working hours to play games, for which the employer imposed a three‑month suspension from duty. The employee filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that he had already been disciplined for violating the Personal Information Protection Act so that the new measure constituted double punishment, that the level of discipline was excessive, and that there were procedural defects, rendering the measure an unfair disciplinary action equivalent to unfair dismissal.
After comprehensively examining the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, the Labor Relations Commission, unlike in many similar unfair dismissal and redundancy cases frequently handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, ruled in favor of the employer in this matter.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In work such as at a watchtower post, where security and monitoring duties are of critical importance, whether imposing a three‑month suspension for bringing in a personal laptop and accessing games during working hours constitutes a justified disciplinary measure in terms of grounds, severity, and procedure, or whether it amounts to an unfair disciplinary action equivalent to unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the grounds for discipline were limited to “bringing in a personal laptop and using it for private purposes during working hours,” and that the prior disciplinary action concerned a “violation of the Personal Information Protection Act,” so that the grounds for discipline were different and the case could not be regarded as double punishment.
The panel further found that work at a watchtower post is characterized by the critical importance of visual and auditory monitoring, and that the employee, despite knowing that bringing in such devices was prohibited, brought in a laptop and accessed games using tethering during working hours. This conduct was evaluated as misconduct that grossly neglected his monitoring duties and posed a serious potential security risk.
Taking into account the disciplinary standards set out in the Rules of Employment, the collective agreement, and Annex 1 to the Detailed Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations, as well as the nature of the misconduct and the employee’s prior disciplinary record, the panel held that a three‑month suspension could not readily be regarded as manifestly unreasonable by social norms and thus did not constitute an abuse or overreach of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
The panel also found that the employee appeared before both the ordinary Personnel Committee and the Central Personnel Committee and was given an opportunity to present his explanations, in compliance with the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the Rules of Employment, and that no serious procedural defects were identified that would render the disciplinary measure invalid.
Accordingly, the commission held that the dismissal measure in this case was justified in terms of the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the disciplinary procedures, and could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that even if there is a prior disciplinary record for a different matter within the same company, a separate disciplinary measure may be imposed if new misconduct occurs. In particular, in jobs directly linked to safety and security—such as watchtower posts, control centers, and security rooms—private internet use or game access during working hours may constitute a serious ground for discipline that significantly undermines corporate order and safety, rather than a mere attendance or minor conduct issue.
Furthermore, even if the employee believes the discipline to be unfair, it is important to appear in good faith before the Personnel Committee, Central Personnel Committee, and other bodies stipulated in the Rules of Employment and collective agreement, and to fully present explanations. At that stage, the employee should strive to substantiate his working environment, specific circumstances, and degree of fault as much as possible, as this may work to his advantage in subsequent Labor Relations Commission relief procedures.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the Rules of Employment and collective agreement relevant provisions such as “prohibition on bringing in and using personal IT devices” and “duty of service for monitoring/security positions,” and to sufficiently notify and train employees on these provisions in the ordinary course of business. This enables the employer to prove that the employee was aware of the prohibition on bringing in such devices. In addition, by preparing Detailed Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations (including annexed disciplinary severity standards) and applying the level of discipline consistently in light of the nature of the misconduct, prior disciplinary record, and job characteristics, the employer can secure important defensive material for the Labor Relations Commission’s review of whether there has been an abuse of discretionary disciplinary authority.
It is also essential to strictly follow procedures such as notice of convening the Disciplinary Committee, specific identification of the grounds for discipline, and providing opportunities to appear before the Personnel Committee and Central Personnel Committee, and to preserve minutes, notices, attendance sheets, and similar documents as evidence. If procedural fairness is not secured, there is a high risk that the measure will be found to be an unfair disciplinary action or unfair dismissal, even where the misconduct is serious and the level of discipline is substantively reasonable.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
The grounds for discipline in this case were limited to the employee’s bringing in a personal laptop and using it for private purposes during working hours. The prior disciplinary action (January 2025), which the employee claims shows that he had already been disciplined, was based on a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and thus concerned different misconduct, so this case does not constitute double punishment. In addition, the misconduct at issue violated Articles 4 and 6 of the Rules of Employment and therefore may serve as grounds for discipline under Article 44 of the Rules of Employment and Article 37 of the collective agreement.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Work at a watchtower post is characterized by the high importance of visual and auditory monitoring. The employee, despite knowing that bringing in such devices was prohibited, brought in a personal laptop and accessed games using tethering during working hours. This conduct is evaluated as gross negligence that neglected his monitoring duties and posed a significant potential security risk. Considering the standards in Annex 1 to the Detailed Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations, the nature of the misconduct, and the employee’s prior disciplinary record, a three‑month suspension cannot be regarded as an overreach or abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee appeared before both the ordinary Personnel Committee and the Central Personnel Committee in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Rules of Employment and was given an opportunity to present explanations, and no other defects were identified that would render the disciplinary measure invalid.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
The grounds for discipline in this case were limited to the employee’s bringing in a personal laptop and using it for private purposes during working hours. The prior disciplinary action (January 2025), which the employee claims shows that he had already been disciplined, was based on a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and thus concerned different misconduct, so this case does not constitute double punishment. In addition, the misconduct at issue violated Articles 4 and 6 of the Rules of Employment and therefore may serve as grounds for discipline under Article 44 of the Rules of Employment and Article 37 of the collective agreement.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Work at a watchtower post is characterized by the high importance of visual and auditory monitoring. The employee, despite knowing that bringing in such devices was prohibited, brought in a personal laptop and accessed games using tethering during working hours. This conduct is evaluated as gross negligence that neglected his monitoring duties and posed a significant potential security risk. Considering the standards in Annex 1 to the Detailed Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations, the nature of the misconduct, and the employee’s prior disciplinary record, a three‑month suspension cannot be regarded as an overreach or abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee appeared before both the ordinary Personnel Committee and the Central Personnel Committee in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Rules of Employment and was given an opportunity to present explanations, and no other defects were identified that would render the disciplinary measure invalid. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Reassignment (Relocation from Office Building to Plant Building within the Same Business Site)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘Non‑Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (watchtower post laptop·game), 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, “‘Dismissal of Application (Request for Correction·Non‑appearance)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (watchtower post laptop·game) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Watchtower Post Laptop·Game).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a labor commission decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (watchtower post laptop·game).”
Adjudicating body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae211 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2025.12.18 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
The grounds for discipline in this case were limited to the employee’s bringing in a personal laptop and using it for private purposes during working hours. The prior disciplinary action (January 2025), which the employee claimed meant he had “already been disciplined,” was based on a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and thus concerned different misconduct. Accordingly, this case did not constitute double punishment.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns a labor commission decision on an employee who, while working at a watchtower post, brought in a personal laptop and used tethering during working hours to play games, for which the employer imposed a three‑month suspension from duty. The employee filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that he had already been disciplined for violating the Personal Information Protection Act so that the new measure constituted double punishment, that the level of discipline was excessive, and that there were procedural defects, rendering the measure an unfair disciplinary action equivalent to unfair dismissal.
After comprehensively examining the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, the Labor Relations Commission, unlike in many similar unfair dismissal and redundancy cases frequently handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, ruled in favor of the employer in this matter.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In work such as at a watchtower post, where security and monitoring duties are of critical importance, whether imposing a three‑month suspension for bringing in a personal laptop and accessing games during working hours constitutes a justified disciplinary measure in terms of grounds, severity, and procedure, or whether it amounts to an unfair disciplinary action equivalent to unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the grounds for discipline were limited to “bringing in a personal laptop and using it for private purposes during working hours,” and that the prior disciplinary action concerned a “violation of the Personal Information Protection Act,” so that the grounds for discipline were different and the case could not be regarded as double punishment.
The panel further found that work at a watchtower post is characterized by the critical importance of visual and auditory monitoring, and that the employee, despite knowing that bringing in such devices was prohibited, brought in a laptop and accessed games using tethering during working hours. This conduct was evaluated as misconduct that grossly neglected his monitoring duties and posed a serious potential security risk.
Taking into account the disciplinary standards set out in the Rules of Employment, the collective agreement, and Annex 1 to the Detailed Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations, as well as the nature of the misconduct and the employee’s prior disciplinary record, the panel held that a three‑month suspension could not readily be regarded as manifestly unreasonable by social norms and thus did not constitute an abuse or overreach of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
The panel also found that the employee appeared before both the ordinary Personnel Committee and the Central Personnel Committee and was given an opportunity to present his explanations, in compliance with the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the Rules of Employment, and that no serious procedural defects were identified that would render the disciplinary measure invalid.
Accordingly, the commission held that the dismissal measure in this case was justified in terms of the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the disciplinary procedures, and could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that even if there is a prior disciplinary record for a different matter within the same company, a separate disciplinary measure may be imposed if new misconduct occurs. In particular, in jobs directly linked to safety and security—such as watchtower posts, control centers, and security rooms—private internet use or game access during working hours may constitute a serious ground for discipline that significantly undermines corporate order and safety, rather than a mere attendance or minor conduct issue.
Furthermore, even if the employee believes the discipline to be unfair, it is important to appear in good faith before the Personnel Committee, Central Personnel Committee, and other bodies stipulated in the Rules of Employment and collective agreement, and to fully present explanations. At that stage, the employee should strive to substantiate his working environment, specific circumstances, and degree of fault as much as possible, as this may work to his advantage in subsequent Labor Relations Commission relief procedures.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the Rules of Employment and collective agreement relevant provisions such as “prohibition on bringing in and using personal IT devices” and “duty of service for monitoring/security positions,” and to sufficiently notify and train employees on these provisions in the ordinary course of business. This enables the employer to prove that the employee was aware of the prohibition on bringing in such devices. In addition, by preparing Detailed Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations (including annexed disciplinary severity standards) and applying the level of discipline consistently in light of the nature of the misconduct, prior disciplinary record, and job characteristics, the employer can secure important defensive material for the Labor Relations Commission’s review of whether there has been an abuse of discretionary disciplinary authority.
It is also essential to strictly follow procedures such as notice of convening the Disciplinary Committee, specific identification of the grounds for discipline, and providing opportunities to appear before the Personnel Committee and Central Personnel Committee, and to preserve minutes, notices, attendance sheets, and similar documents as evidence. If procedural fairness is not secured, there is a high risk that the measure will be found to be an unfair disciplinary action or unfair dismissal, even where the misconduct is serious and the level of discipline is substantively reasonable.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
The grounds for discipline in this case were limited to the employee’s bringing in a personal laptop and using it for private purposes during working hours. The prior disciplinary action (January 2025), which the employee claims shows that he had already been disciplined, was based on a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and thus concerned different misconduct, so this case does not constitute double punishment. In addition, the misconduct at issue violated Articles 4 and 6 of the Rules of Employment and therefore may serve as grounds for discipline under Article 44 of the Rules of Employment and Article 37 of the collective agreement.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Work at a watchtower post is characterized by the high importance of visual and auditory monitoring. The employee, despite knowing that bringing in such devices was prohibited, brought in a personal laptop and accessed games using tethering during working hours. This conduct is evaluated as gross negligence that neglected his monitoring duties and posed a significant potential security risk. Considering the standards in Annex 1 to the Detailed Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations, the nature of the misconduct, and the employee’s prior disciplinary record, a three‑month suspension cannot be regarded as an overreach or abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee appeared before both the ordinary Personnel Committee and the Central Personnel Committee in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Rules of Employment and was given an opportunity to present explanations, and no other defects were identified that would render the disciplinary measure invalid.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
The grounds for discipline in this case were limited to the employee’s bringing in a personal laptop and using it for private purposes during working hours. The prior disciplinary action (January 2025), which the employee claims shows that he had already been disciplined, was based on a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and thus concerned different misconduct, so this case does not constitute double punishment. In addition, the misconduct at issue violated Articles 4 and 6 of the Rules of Employment and therefore may serve as grounds for discipline under Article 44 of the Rules of Employment and Article 37 of the collective agreement.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Work at a watchtower post is characterized by the high importance of visual and auditory monitoring. The employee, despite knowing that bringing in such devices was prohibited, brought in a personal laptop and accessed games using tethering during working hours. This conduct is evaluated as gross negligence that neglected his monitoring duties and posed a significant potential security risk. Considering the standards in Annex 1 to the Detailed Enforcement Rules of the Personnel Regulations, the nature of the misconduct, and the employee’s prior disciplinary record, a three‑month suspension cannot be regarded as an overreach or abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee appeared before both the ordinary Personnel Committee and the Central Personnel Committee in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Rules of Employment and was given an opportunity to present explanations, and no other defects were identified that would render the disciplinary measure invalid. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Reassignment (Relocation from Office Building to Plant Building within the Same Business Site)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘Non‑Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (watchtower post laptop·game), 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, “‘Dismissal of Application (Request for Correction·Non‑appearance)’‑Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (watchtower post laptop·game) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Watchtower Post Laptop·Game).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
