Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Poor Attendance and Failure to Follow Work Instructions (Failure to Scan Seat QR Tag)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 180)
- Date2026/02/05 04:14
- Read 240
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) in a dispute over “poor attendance and failure to follow work instructions (failure to scan seat QR tag).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9106 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.16 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
A total of 58 instances of unauthorized lateness and early departure, a total of 5 days of unauthorized absence or unauthorized working from home, and a total of 171 instances of failure to scan the seat QR tag were recognized as grounds of poor attendance. In addition, with respect to the employee’s refusal to perform work and failure to comply with instructions to submit work reports, the employer repeatedly issued specific work instructions and requested improvement, and, in order to reduce the employee’s workload, transferred part of the employee’s existing duties, thereby granting step‑by‑step opportunities for improvement. Nevertheless, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was dismissed for repeated lateness and early departure, unauthorized absence, failure to scan the seat QR tag, refusal to perform work, and failure to comply with instructions to submit work reports, and then filed an application with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission examined the case in which the employer asserted the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the disciplinary procedures, while the employee argued that dismissal was an excessively severe sanction. The application for remedy for unfair dismissal was ultimately dismissed.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation involving long‑term, repeated poor attendance and failure to follow work instructions, the employer’s choice of dismissal—the most severe disciplinary measure—constituted an abuse or excess of its discretionary power to impose discipline, thereby rendering the dismissal unfair.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case relied on the following: the objective confirmation of poor attendance, including a total of 58 instances of unauthorized lateness and early departure, 5 days of unauthorized absence or unauthorized working from home, and 171 instances of failure to scan the seat QR tag; the fact that, in this situation, the employer repeatedly issued specific work instructions and requests for improvement and granted step‑by‑step opportunities for improvement, such as transferring part of the employee’s existing duties to reduce the employee’s workload, yet the same type of failure to perform work continued; and the apparently substantial negative impact on organizational morale and culture, including impaired harmony and teamwork among colleagues and loss of trust.
Taking these circumstances together, the dismissal was held to be justified on the grounds that the reasons for discipline were sufficiently established, that there were responsible grounds making it difficult, under social norms, to continue the employment relationship, and that the level of discipline could not be regarded as so excessively severe as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power to impose discipline.
In addition, the Commission found no defect in the disciplinary procedures, noting that the employer convened initial and re‑review personnel committees in accordance with the rules of employment, conducted the disciplinary process, and provided the employee with opportunities to make statements and explanations.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that long‑term, repeated violations of attendance and the duty of good faith—such as lateness, early departure, unauthorized absence, and failure to follow work instructions—may be recognized as justifying not only simple warnings but also dismissal as a legitimate disciplinary measure. If the employer repeatedly makes specific requests for improvement and adjusts the employee’s workload to provide opportunities for improvement, yet the same problems persist, labor relations commissions and courts tend to broadly recognize the legitimacy of dismissal.
Furthermore, attendance management systems such as records of clock‑in and clock‑out and seat QR tags are not mere formalities; they become key evidence that determines whether discipline is imposed. Employees should therefore manage themselves carefully to prevent repeated violations in these areas.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, for a redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal based on poor attendance and failure to follow work instructions to be recognized as legitimate, it is important, first, to accumulate objective evidence of facts such as lateness, early departure, unauthorized absence, and refusal to work (e.g., attendance records, system logs, emails, and messenger instruction records). Second, rather than proceeding directly to dismissal, the employer should provide step‑by‑step opportunities for improvement—such as specific work instructions, written warnings, interviews, and job adjustments—and document the process, so that the proportionality and reasonableness of the level of discipline are more readily acknowledged.
In addition, it is necessary to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the grounds and procedures for discipline (initial and re‑review personnel committees, opportunities to make statements, etc.) and to strictly comply with those procedures when actually imposing discipline, thereby preventing disputes over procedural defects.
This Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission decision is a useful example of how to prepare in unfair dismissal disputes with respect to clear proof of the grounds for discipline, proportionality in the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of disciplinary procedures. In similar cases, both employees and employers should consult in advance with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to assess and manage their risks.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
A total of 58 instances of unauthorized lateness and early departure, a total of 5 days of unauthorized absence or unauthorized working from home, and a total of 171 instances of failure to scan the seat QR tag were recognized as grounds of poor attendance. With respect to the employee’s refusal to perform work and failure to comply with instructions to submit work reports, the employer repeatedly issued specific work instructions and requested improvement, and, in order to reduce the employee’s workload, transferred part of the employee’s existing duties, thereby granting step‑by‑step opportunities for improvement. Nevertheless, repeated failures to perform work of the same type were confirmed, and the grounds for discipline were thus recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering comprehensively that violations of working hours were repeatedly committed over a long period, that there was no improvement despite multiple cautions and warnings regarding failure to perform work and neglect of duties, and that repeated failure to perform work and neglect of duties appeared to have a serious negative impact on organizational morale and culture—such as impairing harmony and teamwork among colleagues and causing loss of trust—the disciplinary action cannot be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Initial and re‑review personnel committees were convened in accordance with the lawful procedures set forth in the rules of employment, and sufficient opportunities for explanation were provided, so the disciplinary procedures were lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
A total of 58 instances of unauthorized lateness and early departure, a total of 5 days of unauthorized absence or unauthorized working from home, and a total of 171 instances of failure to scan the seat QR tag were recognized as grounds of poor attendance. With respect to the employee’s refusal to perform work and failure to comply with instructions to submit work reports, the employer repeatedly issued specific work instructions and requested improvement, and, in order to reduce the employee’s workload, transferred part of the employee’s existing duties, thereby granting step‑by‑step opportunities for improvement. Nevertheless, repeated failures to perform work of the same type were confirmed, and the grounds for discipline were thus recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering comprehensively that violations of working hours were repeatedly committed over a long period, that there was no improvement despite multiple cautions and warnings regarding failure to perform work and neglect of duties, and that repeated failure to perform work and neglect of duties appeared to have a serious negative impact on organizational morale and culture—such as impairing harmony and teamwork among colleagues and causing loss of trust—the disciplinary action cannot be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Initial and re‑review personnel committees were convened in accordance with the lawful procedures set forth in the rules of employment, and sufficient opportunities for explanation were provided, so the disciplinary procedures were lawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Disciplinary Dismissal (Virtual Account·Fabrication of Supporting Documents)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Scope of Persons Eligible for Remedy (Cautionary Urging)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, poor attendance·failure to follow work instructions (failure to scan seat QR tag), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, violation of company policy·failure to follow 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, “‘Scope of Persons Eligible for Remedy (Cautionary Urging)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to poor attendance·failure to follow work instructions (failure to scan seat QR tag) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Poor Attendance·Failure to Follow Work Instructions (Failure to Scan Seat QR Tag).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) in a dispute over “poor attendance and failure to follow work instructions (failure to scan seat QR tag).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9106 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.16 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
A total of 58 instances of unauthorized lateness and early departure, a total of 5 days of unauthorized absence or unauthorized working from home, and a total of 171 instances of failure to scan the seat QR tag were recognized as grounds of poor attendance. In addition, with respect to the employee’s refusal to perform work and failure to comply with instructions to submit work reports, the employer repeatedly issued specific work instructions and requested improvement, and, in order to reduce the employee’s workload, transferred part of the employee’s existing duties, thereby granting step‑by‑step opportunities for improvement. Nevertheless, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was dismissed for repeated lateness and early departure, unauthorized absence, failure to scan the seat QR tag, refusal to perform work, and failure to comply with instructions to submit work reports, and then filed an application with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission examined the case in which the employer asserted the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the disciplinary procedures, while the employee argued that dismissal was an excessively severe sanction. The application for remedy for unfair dismissal was ultimately dismissed.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation involving long‑term, repeated poor attendance and failure to follow work instructions, the employer’s choice of dismissal—the most severe disciplinary measure—constituted an abuse or excess of its discretionary power to impose discipline, thereby rendering the dismissal unfair.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case relied on the following: the objective confirmation of poor attendance, including a total of 58 instances of unauthorized lateness and early departure, 5 days of unauthorized absence or unauthorized working from home, and 171 instances of failure to scan the seat QR tag; the fact that, in this situation, the employer repeatedly issued specific work instructions and requests for improvement and granted step‑by‑step opportunities for improvement, such as transferring part of the employee’s existing duties to reduce the employee’s workload, yet the same type of failure to perform work continued; and the apparently substantial negative impact on organizational morale and culture, including impaired harmony and teamwork among colleagues and loss of trust.
Taking these circumstances together, the dismissal was held to be justified on the grounds that the reasons for discipline were sufficiently established, that there were responsible grounds making it difficult, under social norms, to continue the employment relationship, and that the level of discipline could not be regarded as so excessively severe as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power to impose discipline.
In addition, the Commission found no defect in the disciplinary procedures, noting that the employer convened initial and re‑review personnel committees in accordance with the rules of employment, conducted the disciplinary process, and provided the employee with opportunities to make statements and explanations.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that long‑term, repeated violations of attendance and the duty of good faith—such as lateness, early departure, unauthorized absence, and failure to follow work instructions—may be recognized as justifying not only simple warnings but also dismissal as a legitimate disciplinary measure. If the employer repeatedly makes specific requests for improvement and adjusts the employee’s workload to provide opportunities for improvement, yet the same problems persist, labor relations commissions and courts tend to broadly recognize the legitimacy of dismissal.
Furthermore, attendance management systems such as records of clock‑in and clock‑out and seat QR tags are not mere formalities; they become key evidence that determines whether discipline is imposed. Employees should therefore manage themselves carefully to prevent repeated violations in these areas.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, for a redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal based on poor attendance and failure to follow work instructions to be recognized as legitimate, it is important, first, to accumulate objective evidence of facts such as lateness, early departure, unauthorized absence, and refusal to work (e.g., attendance records, system logs, emails, and messenger instruction records). Second, rather than proceeding directly to dismissal, the employer should provide step‑by‑step opportunities for improvement—such as specific work instructions, written warnings, interviews, and job adjustments—and document the process, so that the proportionality and reasonableness of the level of discipline are more readily acknowledged.
In addition, it is necessary to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the grounds and procedures for discipline (initial and re‑review personnel committees, opportunities to make statements, etc.) and to strictly comply with those procedures when actually imposing discipline, thereby preventing disputes over procedural defects.
This Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission decision is a useful example of how to prepare in unfair dismissal disputes with respect to clear proof of the grounds for discipline, proportionality in the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of disciplinary procedures. In similar cases, both employees and employers should consult in advance with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to assess and manage their risks.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
A total of 58 instances of unauthorized lateness and early departure, a total of 5 days of unauthorized absence or unauthorized working from home, and a total of 171 instances of failure to scan the seat QR tag were recognized as grounds of poor attendance. With respect to the employee’s refusal to perform work and failure to comply with instructions to submit work reports, the employer repeatedly issued specific work instructions and requested improvement, and, in order to reduce the employee’s workload, transferred part of the employee’s existing duties, thereby granting step‑by‑step opportunities for improvement. Nevertheless, repeated failures to perform work of the same type were confirmed, and the grounds for discipline were thus recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering comprehensively that violations of working hours were repeatedly committed over a long period, that there was no improvement despite multiple cautions and warnings regarding failure to perform work and neglect of duties, and that repeated failure to perform work and neglect of duties appeared to have a serious negative impact on organizational morale and culture—such as impairing harmony and teamwork among colleagues and causing loss of trust—the disciplinary action cannot be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Initial and re‑review personnel committees were convened in accordance with the lawful procedures set forth in the rules of employment, and sufficient opportunities for explanation were provided, so the disciplinary procedures were lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
A total of 58 instances of unauthorized lateness and early departure, a total of 5 days of unauthorized absence or unauthorized working from home, and a total of 171 instances of failure to scan the seat QR tag were recognized as grounds of poor attendance. With respect to the employee’s refusal to perform work and failure to comply with instructions to submit work reports, the employer repeatedly issued specific work instructions and requested improvement, and, in order to reduce the employee’s workload, transferred part of the employee’s existing duties, thereby granting step‑by‑step opportunities for improvement. Nevertheless, repeated failures to perform work of the same type were confirmed, and the grounds for discipline were thus recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering comprehensively that violations of working hours were repeatedly committed over a long period, that there was no improvement despite multiple cautions and warnings regarding failure to perform work and neglect of duties, and that repeated failure to perform work and neglect of duties appeared to have a serious negative impact on organizational morale and culture—such as impairing harmony and teamwork among colleagues and causing loss of trust—the disciplinary action cannot be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Initial and re‑review personnel committees were convened in accordance with the lawful procedures set forth in the rules of employment, and sufficient opportunities for explanation were provided, so the disciplinary procedures were lawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Disciplinary Dismissal (Virtual Account·Fabrication of Supporting Documents)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Scope of Persons Eligible for Remedy (Cautionary Urging)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, poor attendance·failure to follow work instructions (failure to scan seat QR tag), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, violation of company policy·failure to follow 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, “‘Scope of Persons Eligible for Remedy (Cautionary Urging)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to poor attendance·failure to follow work instructions (failure to scan seat QR tag) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Poor Attendance·Failure to Follow Work Instructions (Failure to Scan Seat QR Tag).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
