Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Disciplinary Severity (One-Month Unauthorized Absence)” (Unfair Dismissal 173)
- Date2026/02/03 04:09
- Read 228
This case is a precedent in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (one-month unauthorized absence).”
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent where, on the issue of “disciplinary severity (one-month unauthorized absence),” the employer prevailed and the application was dismissed.
Adjudicating body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9013 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.16 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employer asserted four grounds for discipline: (1) unauthorized absence, (2) threatening remarks and defamation, (3) visiting beneficiaries without the employer’s instructions, and (4) failure to cooperate with the institution’s response and to accept opportunities for improvement. Even if there is a dispute between the parties regarding the three grounds other than unauthorized absence, the fact of one month and one day of unauthorized absence itself constitutes a ground for discipline under the work rules, which specify unauthorized absence of three or more days as a disciplinary ground. Accordingly, grounds for discipline exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed a three‑month suspension from duty on the employee on the ground of a prolonged period of unauthorized absence. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that this constituted an unfair disciplinary measure equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on the provisions of the work rules regarding unauthorized absence, whether the disciplinary procedures had been followed, and whether the level of discipline was appropriate.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the work rules provide that unauthorized absence of three or more days constitutes a ground for discipline, imposing a three‑month suspension for one month and one day of unauthorized absence amounts to an abuse of the employer’s discretion in setting the level of discipline, and whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel held that, even if there is a dispute between the parties regarding some of the grounds asserted by the employer (threatening remarks, defamation, visiting beneficiaries without instructions, failure to accept opportunities for improvement, etc.), the fact of one month and one day of unauthorized absence itself constitutes a ground for discipline, given that the work rules specify unauthorized absence of three or more days as a disciplinary ground.
Furthermore, in light of (i) the very long duration of the unauthorized absence, (ii) the fact that the work rules expressly list unauthorized absence as a ground for discipline, and (iii) social norms, under which a three‑month suspension for such a lengthy period of unauthorized absence cannot readily be regarded as excessive, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the employer had departed from or abused its discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
In addition, based on the facts that the employer provided prior notice of the disciplinary committee meeting, afforded the employee an opportunity to present explanations, convened the disciplinary committee, and notified the result in accordance with the work rules, the panel found no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
The panel therefore held that the dismissal measure in this case could not readily be deemed unfair, as there were no serious defects in the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, or the disciplinary procedures, and that the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal should be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that even where there is an actual illness or unavoidable circumstance, failure to submit a leave of absence form or sick leave application in the manner prescribed by the company may result in the absence being treated as “unauthorized.” In particular, where the work rules expressly list unauthorized absence as a ground for discipline or dismissal, if prolonged unauthorized absences accumulate, there is a high likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will recognize the legitimacy of the disciplinary action. Accordingly, if unavoidable circumstances arise, employees should, to the extent possible, notify the employer in advance or as promptly as possible, supported by written documents and evidentiary materials.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly define in the work rules the concept of unauthorized absence, the procedures for submitting leave of absence forms, and the connection between such absence and discipline or dismissal, and to apply those provisions consistently in actual cases.
In determining the level of discipline, the employer should comprehensively consider the seriousness of the matter (i.e., the prolonged unauthorized absence), the impact on workplace order, and the employee’s prior work attitude, and should faithfully implement procedures such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing prior notice and an opportunity to explain. By doing so, the employer can be better prepared to have the legitimacy of its disciplinary measures recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
To prevail in unfair dismissal and disciplinary cases of this type, it is important to design in advance detailed work rules on unauthorized absence and standards for determining the level of discipline, and, in actual cases, to systematically organize and prove the facts and procedural steps taken in line with those standards. This is a point to bear in mind together with Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employer asserted four grounds for discipline: unauthorized absence, threatening remarks and defamation, visiting beneficiaries without the employer’s instructions, and failure to cooperate with the institution’s response and to accept opportunities for improvement. Even if there is a dispute between the parties regarding the three grounds other than unauthorized absence, the fact of one month and one day of unauthorized absence itself constitutes a ground for discipline under the work rules, which specify unauthorized absence of three or more days as a disciplinary ground. Accordingly, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Because the work rules specify unauthorized absence of three or more days as a ground for discipline, imposing a three‑month suspension on the employee for one month and one day of unauthorized absence cannot readily be regarded as a departure from or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of the work rules, the employer provided prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee and an opportunity to explain, convened the disciplinary committee, and notified the result. No procedural defects were identified in the course of the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employer asserted four grounds for discipline: unauthorized absence, threatening remarks and defamation, visiting beneficiaries without the employer’s instructions, and failure to cooperate with the institution’s response and to accept opportunities for improvement. Even if there is a dispute between the parties regarding the three grounds other than unauthorized absence, the fact of one month and one day of unauthorized absence itself constitutes a ground for discipline under the work rules, which specify unauthorized absence of three or more days as a disciplinary ground. Accordingly, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Because the work rules specify unauthorized absence of three or more days as a ground for discipline, imposing a three‑month suspension on the employee for one month and one day of unauthorized absence cannot readily be regarded as a departure from or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of the work rules, the employer provided prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee and an opportunity to explain, convened the disciplinary committee, and notified the result. No procedural defects were identified in the course of the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Refusal to Confirm Regular Employment After Probation (One-Month Probation at a Private Academy)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Employment Contract (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (one‑month unauthorized absence), unauthorized absence, disciplinary dismissal, 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 Precedent” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Refusal to Confirm Regular Employment After Probation (One-Month Probation at a Private Academy)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (one‑month unauthorized absence) can be viewed together on the “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (One-Month Unauthorized Absence).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent where, on the issue of “disciplinary severity (one-month unauthorized absence),” the employer prevailed and the application was dismissed.
Adjudicating body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9013 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.16 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employer asserted four grounds for discipline: (1) unauthorized absence, (2) threatening remarks and defamation, (3) visiting beneficiaries without the employer’s instructions, and (4) failure to cooperate with the institution’s response and to accept opportunities for improvement. Even if there is a dispute between the parties regarding the three grounds other than unauthorized absence, the fact of one month and one day of unauthorized absence itself constitutes a ground for discipline under the work rules, which specify unauthorized absence of three or more days as a disciplinary ground. Accordingly, grounds for discipline exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed a three‑month suspension from duty on the employee on the ground of a prolonged period of unauthorized absence. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that this constituted an unfair disciplinary measure equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on the provisions of the work rules regarding unauthorized absence, whether the disciplinary procedures had been followed, and whether the level of discipline was appropriate.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the work rules provide that unauthorized absence of three or more days constitutes a ground for discipline, imposing a three‑month suspension for one month and one day of unauthorized absence amounts to an abuse of the employer’s discretion in setting the level of discipline, and whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel held that, even if there is a dispute between the parties regarding some of the grounds asserted by the employer (threatening remarks, defamation, visiting beneficiaries without instructions, failure to accept opportunities for improvement, etc.), the fact of one month and one day of unauthorized absence itself constitutes a ground for discipline, given that the work rules specify unauthorized absence of three or more days as a disciplinary ground.
Furthermore, in light of (i) the very long duration of the unauthorized absence, (ii) the fact that the work rules expressly list unauthorized absence as a ground for discipline, and (iii) social norms, under which a three‑month suspension for such a lengthy period of unauthorized absence cannot readily be regarded as excessive, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the employer had departed from or abused its discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
In addition, based on the facts that the employer provided prior notice of the disciplinary committee meeting, afforded the employee an opportunity to present explanations, convened the disciplinary committee, and notified the result in accordance with the work rules, the panel found no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
The panel therefore held that the dismissal measure in this case could not readily be deemed unfair, as there were no serious defects in the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, or the disciplinary procedures, and that the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal should be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that even where there is an actual illness or unavoidable circumstance, failure to submit a leave of absence form or sick leave application in the manner prescribed by the company may result in the absence being treated as “unauthorized.” In particular, where the work rules expressly list unauthorized absence as a ground for discipline or dismissal, if prolonged unauthorized absences accumulate, there is a high likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will recognize the legitimacy of the disciplinary action. Accordingly, if unavoidable circumstances arise, employees should, to the extent possible, notify the employer in advance or as promptly as possible, supported by written documents and evidentiary materials.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly define in the work rules the concept of unauthorized absence, the procedures for submitting leave of absence forms, and the connection between such absence and discipline or dismissal, and to apply those provisions consistently in actual cases.
In determining the level of discipline, the employer should comprehensively consider the seriousness of the matter (i.e., the prolonged unauthorized absence), the impact on workplace order, and the employee’s prior work attitude, and should faithfully implement procedures such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing prior notice and an opportunity to explain. By doing so, the employer can be better prepared to have the legitimacy of its disciplinary measures recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
To prevail in unfair dismissal and disciplinary cases of this type, it is important to design in advance detailed work rules on unauthorized absence and standards for determining the level of discipline, and, in actual cases, to systematically organize and prove the facts and procedural steps taken in line with those standards. This is a point to bear in mind together with Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employer asserted four grounds for discipline: unauthorized absence, threatening remarks and defamation, visiting beneficiaries without the employer’s instructions, and failure to cooperate with the institution’s response and to accept opportunities for improvement. Even if there is a dispute between the parties regarding the three grounds other than unauthorized absence, the fact of one month and one day of unauthorized absence itself constitutes a ground for discipline under the work rules, which specify unauthorized absence of three or more days as a disciplinary ground. Accordingly, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Because the work rules specify unauthorized absence of three or more days as a ground for discipline, imposing a three‑month suspension on the employee for one month and one day of unauthorized absence cannot readily be regarded as a departure from or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of the work rules, the employer provided prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee and an opportunity to explain, convened the disciplinary committee, and notified the result. No procedural defects were identified in the course of the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employer asserted four grounds for discipline: unauthorized absence, threatening remarks and defamation, visiting beneficiaries without the employer’s instructions, and failure to cooperate with the institution’s response and to accept opportunities for improvement. Even if there is a dispute between the parties regarding the three grounds other than unauthorized absence, the fact of one month and one day of unauthorized absence itself constitutes a ground for discipline under the work rules, which specify unauthorized absence of three or more days as a disciplinary ground. Accordingly, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Because the work rules specify unauthorized absence of three or more days as a ground for discipline, imposing a three‑month suspension on the employee for one month and one day of unauthorized absence cannot readily be regarded as a departure from or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of the work rules, the employer provided prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee and an opportunity to explain, convened the disciplinary committee, and notified the result. No procedural defects were identified in the course of the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Refusal to Confirm Regular Employment After Probation (One-Month Probation at a Private Academy)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Employment Contract (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (one‑month unauthorized absence), unauthorized absence, disciplinary dismissal, 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 Precedent” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Refusal to Confirm Regular Employment After Probation (One-Month Probation at a Private Academy)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (one‑month unauthorized absence) can be viewed together on the “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (One-Month Unauthorized Absence).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
