Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on the “Scope of Remedy (Warning Notice)” (Unfair Dismissal 179)
- Date2026/02/05 04:09
- Read 234
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “scope of remedy (warning notice).”
Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9163 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.16 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issues summarized:
① The measure did not fall under any of the types of disciplinary action specified in the disciplinary guidelines;
② There were no restrictions on promotion or advancement, and no disadvantages in terms of length of service or remuneration;
③ There was no basis for imposing disciplinary action in the event of recurrence, and the record would be expunged if no other measure or disciplinary action was imposed within one year from the date of the measure;
④ The unfair dismissal, etc. that may be the subject of a remedy application under the Labor Standards Act should be interpreted as an exhaustive and restrictive list, and it is not appropriate to regard all disadvantageous measures that may generally occur in an employment relationship as falling within the scope of such remedy applications; …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee received a “warning notice” from the employer, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal or other unfair punishment. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the matter focusing on whether the measure fell within the scope of matters for which a remedy application is available under the Labor Standards Act, and ultimately rendered a decision dismissing the application in favor of the employer.
Based on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law& in handling numerous unfair dismissal cases, this can be viewed as a typical case in which the boundary between formal disciplinary action and personnel measures equivalent to discipline becomes a key issue.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a ‘warning notice’ that does not fall under any type of disciplinary action specified in the rules of employment or disciplinary guidelines, and that does not cause any direct disadvantage in terms of promotion, advancement, or remuneration, constitutes ‘other punishment’ as referred to in Articles 23(1) and 28 of the Labor Standards Act—i.e., unfair dismissal, etc.—and thus may be the subject of a remedy application before the Labor Relations Commission.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that “warning notice” was not included among the types of disciplinary action specified in the disciplinary guidelines; that the warning notice did not in reality cause any disadvantage in terms of promotion, advancement, length of service, or remuneration; and that there was no separate basis for using it as grounds for disciplinary action in the event of recurrence, nor any long-term sanctioning effect, and that the record would be expunged after a certain period of time.
In light of these factors, and considering that the phrase “dismissal, suspension from duty, suspension from work, transfer, reduction in wages, and other punishment” in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act should be interpreted as an exhaustive and restrictive list, and that not every disadvantageous measure arising in an employment relationship immediately becomes subject to a remedy application, as established in prior case law and commentary,
the Commission held that the warning notice in this case could not readily be regarded as a punitive disposition imposing substantive disadvantages on the employee as a sanction. Accordingly, it did not fall within the scope of unfair dismissal, etc. subject to a remedy order by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to note that not every personnel measure automatically becomes subject to a remedy application before the Labor Relations Commission. For a disciplinary or personnel measure to be subject to a remedy application, it must either be a sanction enumerated in the law—such as dismissal, suspension from duty, or reduction in wages—or a measure that, in substance, is equivalent thereto, where objective, substantive disadvantages (such as reduced wages, restrictions on promotion or advancement, etc.) can be recognized.
Therefore, in the case of a “warning notice,” a simple warning email, performance evaluation results, or other measures that have no direct sanctioning effect or are merely temporary in nature, it may be difficult to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. based on that measure alone. It is thus necessary to carefully examine whether and how such measures are concretely linked to disadvantages in wages, promotion, position, etc., and to formulate a response strategy accordingly.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to clearly distinguish and stipulate in the rules of employment and disciplinary guidelines the types and effects of disciplinary action, and to draw a clear line between measures such as “warning notices” that are intended for education and guidance, and those that are intended as sanctions. As in this case, if no restrictions on promotion or advancement, no reduction in wages, and no long-term personnel disadvantages are associated with the measure, and if the record is designed to be expunged after a certain period, the risk of it being evaluated as “other punishment” subject to a remedy application before the Labor Relations Commission can be reduced.
However, even if a measure is formally labeled as “warning” or “guidance,” if in reality it is linked to serious disadvantages such as reduction in wages or restrictions on promotion, the courts or the Labor Relations Commission may assess the measure based on its substance and deem it punitive. Accordingly, in personnel practice, it is important to design and operate not only the wording but also the concrete effects of such measures in a consistent manner.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account: ① that the measure did not fall under any type of disciplinary action specified in the disciplinary guidelines; ② that there were no restrictions on promotion or advancement and no disadvantages in terms of length of service or remuneration; ③ that there was no basis for imposing disciplinary action in the event of recurrence, and that the record would be expunged if no other measure or disciplinary action was imposed within one year from the date of the measure; and ④ that the unfair dismissal, etc. that may be the subject of a remedy application under the Labor Standards Act should reasonably be interpreted as an exhaustive and restrictive list, and that it is not appropriate to regard all disadvantageous dispositions that may generally occur in an employment relationship as falling within the scope of such remedy applications,
the Commission determined that a warning notice cannot be regarded as a disposition imposing direct sanctions on the employee, and therefore does not fall within the scope of remedy orders under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account: ① that the measure did not fall under any type of disciplinary action specified in the disciplinary guidelines; ② that there were no restrictions on promotion or advancement and no disadvantages in terms of length of service or remuneration; ③ that there was no basis for imposing disciplinary action in the event of recurrence, and that the record would be expunged if no other measure or disciplinary action was imposed within one year from the date of the measure; and ④ that the unfair dismissal, etc. that may be the subject of a remedy application under the Labor Standards Act should reasonably be interpreted as an exhaustive and restrictive list, and that it is not appropriate to regard all disadvantageous dispositions that may generally occur in an employment relationship as falling within the scope of such remedy applications,
the Commission determined that a warning notice cannot be regarded as a disposition imposing direct sanctions on the employee, and therefore does not fall within the scope of remedy orders under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Disciplinary Dismissal (Virtual Account·Fabrication of Supporting Documents)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, scope of remedy (warning notice), others, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Disciplinary Dismissal (Virtual Account·Fabrication of Supporting Documents)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the scope of remedy (warning notice) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Scope of Remedy (Warning Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “scope of remedy (warning notice).”
Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9163 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.16 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issues summarized:
① The measure did not fall under any of the types of disciplinary action specified in the disciplinary guidelines;
② There were no restrictions on promotion or advancement, and no disadvantages in terms of length of service or remuneration;
③ There was no basis for imposing disciplinary action in the event of recurrence, and the record would be expunged if no other measure or disciplinary action was imposed within one year from the date of the measure;
④ The unfair dismissal, etc. that may be the subject of a remedy application under the Labor Standards Act should be interpreted as an exhaustive and restrictive list, and it is not appropriate to regard all disadvantageous measures that may generally occur in an employment relationship as falling within the scope of such remedy applications; …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee received a “warning notice” from the employer, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal or other unfair punishment. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the matter focusing on whether the measure fell within the scope of matters for which a remedy application is available under the Labor Standards Act, and ultimately rendered a decision dismissing the application in favor of the employer.
Based on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law& in handling numerous unfair dismissal cases, this can be viewed as a typical case in which the boundary between formal disciplinary action and personnel measures equivalent to discipline becomes a key issue.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a ‘warning notice’ that does not fall under any type of disciplinary action specified in the rules of employment or disciplinary guidelines, and that does not cause any direct disadvantage in terms of promotion, advancement, or remuneration, constitutes ‘other punishment’ as referred to in Articles 23(1) and 28 of the Labor Standards Act—i.e., unfair dismissal, etc.—and thus may be the subject of a remedy application before the Labor Relations Commission.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that “warning notice” was not included among the types of disciplinary action specified in the disciplinary guidelines; that the warning notice did not in reality cause any disadvantage in terms of promotion, advancement, length of service, or remuneration; and that there was no separate basis for using it as grounds for disciplinary action in the event of recurrence, nor any long-term sanctioning effect, and that the record would be expunged after a certain period of time.
In light of these factors, and considering that the phrase “dismissal, suspension from duty, suspension from work, transfer, reduction in wages, and other punishment” in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act should be interpreted as an exhaustive and restrictive list, and that not every disadvantageous measure arising in an employment relationship immediately becomes subject to a remedy application, as established in prior case law and commentary,
the Commission held that the warning notice in this case could not readily be regarded as a punitive disposition imposing substantive disadvantages on the employee as a sanction. Accordingly, it did not fall within the scope of unfair dismissal, etc. subject to a remedy order by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to note that not every personnel measure automatically becomes subject to a remedy application before the Labor Relations Commission. For a disciplinary or personnel measure to be subject to a remedy application, it must either be a sanction enumerated in the law—such as dismissal, suspension from duty, or reduction in wages—or a measure that, in substance, is equivalent thereto, where objective, substantive disadvantages (such as reduced wages, restrictions on promotion or advancement, etc.) can be recognized.
Therefore, in the case of a “warning notice,” a simple warning email, performance evaluation results, or other measures that have no direct sanctioning effect or are merely temporary in nature, it may be difficult to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. based on that measure alone. It is thus necessary to carefully examine whether and how such measures are concretely linked to disadvantages in wages, promotion, position, etc., and to formulate a response strategy accordingly.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to clearly distinguish and stipulate in the rules of employment and disciplinary guidelines the types and effects of disciplinary action, and to draw a clear line between measures such as “warning notices” that are intended for education and guidance, and those that are intended as sanctions. As in this case, if no restrictions on promotion or advancement, no reduction in wages, and no long-term personnel disadvantages are associated with the measure, and if the record is designed to be expunged after a certain period, the risk of it being evaluated as “other punishment” subject to a remedy application before the Labor Relations Commission can be reduced.
However, even if a measure is formally labeled as “warning” or “guidance,” if in reality it is linked to serious disadvantages such as reduction in wages or restrictions on promotion, the courts or the Labor Relations Commission may assess the measure based on its substance and deem it punitive. Accordingly, in personnel practice, it is important to design and operate not only the wording but also the concrete effects of such measures in a consistent manner.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account: ① that the measure did not fall under any type of disciplinary action specified in the disciplinary guidelines; ② that there were no restrictions on promotion or advancement and no disadvantages in terms of length of service or remuneration; ③ that there was no basis for imposing disciplinary action in the event of recurrence, and that the record would be expunged if no other measure or disciplinary action was imposed within one year from the date of the measure; and ④ that the unfair dismissal, etc. that may be the subject of a remedy application under the Labor Standards Act should reasonably be interpreted as an exhaustive and restrictive list, and that it is not appropriate to regard all disadvantageous dispositions that may generally occur in an employment relationship as falling within the scope of such remedy applications,
the Commission determined that a warning notice cannot be regarded as a disposition imposing direct sanctions on the employee, and therefore does not fall within the scope of remedy orders under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account: ① that the measure did not fall under any type of disciplinary action specified in the disciplinary guidelines; ② that there were no restrictions on promotion or advancement and no disadvantages in terms of length of service or remuneration; ③ that there was no basis for imposing disciplinary action in the event of recurrence, and that the record would be expunged if no other measure or disciplinary action was imposed within one year from the date of the measure; and ④ that the unfair dismissal, etc. that may be the subject of a remedy application under the Labor Standards Act should reasonably be interpreted as an exhaustive and restrictive list, and that it is not appropriate to regard all disadvantageous dispositions that may generally occur in an employment relationship as falling within the scope of such remedy applications,
the Commission determined that a warning notice cannot be regarded as a disposition imposing direct sanctions on the employee, and therefore does not fall within the scope of remedy orders under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Disciplinary Dismissal (Virtual Account·Fabrication of Supporting Documents)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, scope of remedy (warning notice), others, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Disciplinary Dismissal (Virtual Account·Fabrication of Supporting Documents)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the scope of remedy (warning notice) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Scope of Remedy (Warning Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
