Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Unjust Cause for Dismissal (Drunk Driving · Refusal of Job Transfer)” (Unfair Dismissal 184)
- Date2026/02/07 04:04
- Read 238
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “unjust cause for dismissal (drunk driving · refusal of job transfer).”
Adjudicating Body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9042 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.15 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of Key Issues: ■ Whether the grounds for dismissal were just. The employee’s drunk driving, which at the time of detection reached the level for license revocation, triggered the dismissal. However, at the time the dismissal was notified, the employee’s driver’s license appears to have still been valid. Although the authority to change an employee’s position lies within the employer’s inherent right of personnel management, the stated reason for dismissal was that the employer “proposed a job transfer, which the employee refused.” The Commission found that this does not constitute a just cause for dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer dismissed the employee after the employee’s drunk driving incident, and the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission examined the legitimacy of the dismissal grounds, focusing on whether the driver’s license was valid at the time of dismissal and on the circumstances surrounding the proposal and refusal of the job transfer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “the mere fact that, following the detection of drunk driving, the employer proposed a job transfer to an employee engaged in driving duties and the employee refused that proposal” is sufficient to constitute just cause for dismissal at the level required by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that, although the employee’s blood alcohol level at the time of the drunk driving incident was high enough to warrant license revocation, the employee’s driver’s license appears to have remained valid at the time the dismissal was notified. It also noted that decisions on job transfers, in principle, fall within the employer’s inherent personnel authority, yet the employer shifted this to the employee in the form of a proposal requiring the employee’s choice and consent. Despite this, the employer immediately treated “the employee’s refusal of the job transfer proposal” as grounds for dismissal. The panel found it difficult to regard this as a serious reason, by social norms, sufficient to make continuation of the employment relationship impossible.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair because the grounds for dismissal were not objectively just.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even where there has been misconduct such as drunk driving by an employee, the key criterion is whether, in light of the status of the license at the time of dismissal, the actual duties performed, and the proportionality of the disciplinary measure, the situation is such that, by social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. Where the employer opts for immediate dismissal instead of less severe measures such as job transfer or reassignment—particularly where the dismissal ground is an indirect one such as “refusal of job transfer proposal”—there is a significant basis to contest unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Employees should therefore carefully organize and respond based on the reasons stated in the dismissal notice, the actual course of events, and the status of any licenses or qualifications.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
Even where serious unlawful conduct such as drunk driving is at issue, the employer should consider step-by-step measures prior to dismissal, such as temporary removal from duties, job transfer, training, or warnings, and must be able to prove that, notwithstanding such measures, there are concrete circumstances making continuation of the employment relationship impossible. In addition, since job transfer falls within the employer’s inherent personnel authority, it is preferable not to shift this to the employee’s “acceptance or refusal” and then treat such refusal as grounds for dismissal. Instead, employers should clearly establish disciplinary standards and procedures in work rules and personnel regulations and take consistent measures in accordance with them.
This type of decision illustrates how strictly the substantive legitimacy of dismissal grounds is assessed in unfair dismissal disputes, and suggests that both employees and employers should consult with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to establish disciplinary standards and principles of personnel management in advance.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
■ Whether the grounds for dismissal were just. The employee’s drunk driving, which at the time of detection reached the level for license revocation, triggered the dismissal. However, at the time the dismissal was notified, the employee’s driver’s license appears to have been valid. Although the authority to change an employee’s position lies within the employer’s inherent right of personnel management, the stated reason for dismissal was that the employer “proposed a job transfer, which the employee refused.” The Commission found that this does not constitute a just cause for dismissal. Therefore, there was no need to further examine the lawfulness of the dismissal procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
■ Whether the grounds for dismissal were just. The employee’s drunk driving, which at the time of detection reached the level for license revocation, triggered the dismissal. However, at the time the dismissal was notified, the employee’s driver’s license appears to have been valid. Although the authority to change an employee’s position lies within the employer’s inherent right of personnel management, the stated reason for dismissal was that the employer “proposed a job transfer, which the employee refused.” The Commission found that this does not constitute a just cause for dismissal. Therefore, there was no need to further examine the lawfulness of the dismissal procedure. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, unjust cause for dismissal (drunk driving · refusal of job transfer), 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “‘Mandatory Retirement Reached (Foundation’s Work Rules)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to unjust cause for dismissal (drunk driving · refusal of job transfer) can be viewed together in the “Unjust Cause for Dismissal (Drunk Driving · Refusal of Job Transfer) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “unjust cause for dismissal (drunk driving · refusal of job transfer).”
Adjudicating Body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9042 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.15 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of Key Issues: ■ Whether the grounds for dismissal were just. The employee’s drunk driving, which at the time of detection reached the level for license revocation, triggered the dismissal. However, at the time the dismissal was notified, the employee’s driver’s license appears to have still been valid. Although the authority to change an employee’s position lies within the employer’s inherent right of personnel management, the stated reason for dismissal was that the employer “proposed a job transfer, which the employee refused.” The Commission found that this does not constitute a just cause for dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer dismissed the employee after the employee’s drunk driving incident, and the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission examined the legitimacy of the dismissal grounds, focusing on whether the driver’s license was valid at the time of dismissal and on the circumstances surrounding the proposal and refusal of the job transfer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “the mere fact that, following the detection of drunk driving, the employer proposed a job transfer to an employee engaged in driving duties and the employee refused that proposal” is sufficient to constitute just cause for dismissal at the level required by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that, although the employee’s blood alcohol level at the time of the drunk driving incident was high enough to warrant license revocation, the employee’s driver’s license appears to have remained valid at the time the dismissal was notified. It also noted that decisions on job transfers, in principle, fall within the employer’s inherent personnel authority, yet the employer shifted this to the employee in the form of a proposal requiring the employee’s choice and consent. Despite this, the employer immediately treated “the employee’s refusal of the job transfer proposal” as grounds for dismissal. The panel found it difficult to regard this as a serious reason, by social norms, sufficient to make continuation of the employment relationship impossible.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair because the grounds for dismissal were not objectively just.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even where there has been misconduct such as drunk driving by an employee, the key criterion is whether, in light of the status of the license at the time of dismissal, the actual duties performed, and the proportionality of the disciplinary measure, the situation is such that, by social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. Where the employer opts for immediate dismissal instead of less severe measures such as job transfer or reassignment—particularly where the dismissal ground is an indirect one such as “refusal of job transfer proposal”—there is a significant basis to contest unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Employees should therefore carefully organize and respond based on the reasons stated in the dismissal notice, the actual course of events, and the status of any licenses or qualifications.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
Even where serious unlawful conduct such as drunk driving is at issue, the employer should consider step-by-step measures prior to dismissal, such as temporary removal from duties, job transfer, training, or warnings, and must be able to prove that, notwithstanding such measures, there are concrete circumstances making continuation of the employment relationship impossible. In addition, since job transfer falls within the employer’s inherent personnel authority, it is preferable not to shift this to the employee’s “acceptance or refusal” and then treat such refusal as grounds for dismissal. Instead, employers should clearly establish disciplinary standards and procedures in work rules and personnel regulations and take consistent measures in accordance with them.
This type of decision illustrates how strictly the substantive legitimacy of dismissal grounds is assessed in unfair dismissal disputes, and suggests that both employees and employers should consult with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to establish disciplinary standards and principles of personnel management in advance.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
■ Whether the grounds for dismissal were just. The employee’s drunk driving, which at the time of detection reached the level for license revocation, triggered the dismissal. However, at the time the dismissal was notified, the employee’s driver’s license appears to have been valid. Although the authority to change an employee’s position lies within the employer’s inherent right of personnel management, the stated reason for dismissal was that the employer “proposed a job transfer, which the employee refused.” The Commission found that this does not constitute a just cause for dismissal. Therefore, there was no need to further examine the lawfulness of the dismissal procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
■ Whether the grounds for dismissal were just. The employee’s drunk driving, which at the time of detection reached the level for license revocation, triggered the dismissal. However, at the time the dismissal was notified, the employee’s driver’s license appears to have been valid. Although the authority to change an employee’s position lies within the employer’s inherent right of personnel management, the stated reason for dismissal was that the employer “proposed a job transfer, which the employee refused.” The Commission found that this does not constitute a just cause for dismissal. Therefore, there was no need to further examine the lawfulness of the dismissal procedure. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, unjust cause for dismissal (drunk driving · refusal of job transfer), 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “‘Mandatory Retirement Reached (Foundation’s Work Rules)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to unjust cause for dismissal (drunk driving · refusal of job transfer) can be viewed together in the “Unjust Cause for Dismissal (Drunk Driving · Refusal of Job Transfer) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
