Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Disciplinary Severity (Security Screening · Entry Clearance)” (Unfair Dismissal 186)
- Date2026/02/07 04:13
- Read 224
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the issue of “disciplinary severity (security screening · entry clearance)” was ultimately concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae1305 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.15 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since the employee granted entry clearance (입문 조치) to a vehicle without access authorization and to prohibited items, the grounds for discipline in this case are recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer imposed a suspension from duty as a disciplinary measure on the ground that the employee had granted entry clearance to a vehicle without access authorization and to prohibited items. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The employer prevailed at first instance, and the Central Labor Relations Commission, on re‑examination, upheld the first-instance decision, finding the discipline to be justified.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the conduct of an employee performing security screening duties—granting entry clearance to a vehicle without access authorization and to prohibited items—constitutes grounds for discipline, and whether the resulting suspension (as the level of discipline) and the disciplinary procedures are lawful.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: the fact that the employee actually granted entry clearance to a vehicle without access authorization and to prohibited items was established; the conduct caused a loss of trust and business disadvantage to the employer in the form of a written warning from the client company; and the employee failed to comply with the basic security procedures set out in the work manual.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the grounds for discipline in this case were established.
In addition, the employer, in line with the purport of the Labor Relations Commission’s decision, had already reduced the level of discipline to a suspension; considering the nature of the grounds for discipline, the resulting damage, and the importance of workplace security, it was difficult to regard the disciplinary measure as markedly excessive by social standards. In light of the case law on criteria for determining the appropriateness of disciplinary severity (comprehensive consideration of the content and nature of the grounds for discipline, its purpose, and all surrounding circumstances), the Commission found that there was no abuse or excess of discretionary authority. On this basis, the appropriateness of the disciplinary severity was recognized.
Furthermore, the employer had cancelled the previous disciplinary measure and notified the employee of this in writing; prior to imposing the suspension, the employer gave advance notice of appearance, convened a disciplinary committee, and adopted a resolution; and the employer delivered a written notice of discipline specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline. Taking these factors together, the Commission held that the disciplinary procedures were lawful, satisfying the legal principles under the Labor Standards Act on written notice and the opportunity to be heard in cases of dismissal and discipline, as well as the purport of the work rules and collective agreement.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held not to be unfair, as the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the disciplinary severity, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures were all recognized.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees engaged in high‑risk duties such as security, safety, and asset protection should bear in mind that violations of work manuals and security procedures may be regarded as serious grounds for discipline, even if they are characterized as simple mistakes. In particular, where the duties are linked to contractual relationships with client companies, any warning or claim received from a client may operate to the employee’s disadvantage when determining the level of discipline. It is therefore important to thoroughly familiarize oneself with the manuals, participate in training, and strictly follow the reporting procedures to superiors in suspicious situations.
Employees should also carefully check procedural aspects, such as whether any previous disciplinary measure has been cancelled, and whether proper notice of appearance before the disciplinary committee and written notice of the grounds for discipline have been given. In cases where procedures are largely in place, the core issue will be proving that the level of discipline is markedly excessive by social standards, and response strategies should be formulated with this in mind.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to prepare specific and easy‑to‑understand work manuals for duties related to security and safety, and to repeatedly provide training and written notice of their contents to employees so that the existence and content of “basic security procedures” are clearly established. With respect to disciplinary severity, employers should maintain internal disciplinary guidelines and, while comprehensively considering the specific risk level of the violation, the potential for deterioration of relationships with client companies, and the level of discipline in past similar cases, keep records that can demonstrate that the level of discipline was set at a level not excessive by social standards.
In the disciplinary process, employers should clearly organize the handling of prior disciplinary measures (including whether they were cancelled), and must in practice—not only in form—comply with the procedures required by the Labor Standards Act and the work rules, such as advance notice of the disciplinary committee, providing an opportunity to appear and explain, and written notice specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline. Doing so will make it easier to obtain recognition of the legitimacy of the discipline before the Labor Relations Commission.
This Central Labor Relations Commission precedent is a good example of the legal approach in unfair dismissal disputes of separately, and then comprehensively, examining the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of disciplinary severity, and the lawfulness of disciplinary procedures. When dealing with similar matters, working from an early stage with experienced professionals in unfair dismissal and redundancy cases, such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to organize the facts and procedures will be of great help in preventing and responding to disputes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since the employee granted entry clearance to a vehicle without access authorization and to prohibited items, the grounds for discipline in this case are recognized.
B. Appropriateness of disciplinary severity
The employer in this case reduced the disciplinary severity in accordance with the purport of our Commission’s decision; the employer received a written warning from the client company due to the grounds for discipline in this case; and the employee failed to comply with the basic security procedures set out in the work manual. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the form of abuse or excess of discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of disciplinary procedures
The employer in this case delivered to the employee a notice of cancellation of the previous disciplinary measure on 6 March 2025; gave advance notice of appearance concerning the suspension in this case and convened a disciplinary committee, which adopted a resolution; and delivered a written notice of discipline specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline. Therefore, the disciplinary procedures in this case are lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since the employee granted entry clearance to a vehicle without access authorization and to prohibited items, the grounds for discipline in this case are recognized.
B. Appropriateness of disciplinary severity
The employer in this case reduced the disciplinary severity in accordance with the purport of our Commission’s decision; the employer received a written warning from the client company due to the grounds for discipline in this case; and the employee failed to comply with the basic security procedures set out in the work manual. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the form of abuse or excess of discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of disciplinary procedures
The employer in this case delivered to the employee a notice of cancellation of the previous disciplinary measure on 6 March 2025; gave advance notice of appearance concerning the suspension in this case and convened a disciplinary committee, which adopted a resolution; and delivered a written notice of discipline specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline. Therefore, the disciplinary procedures in this case are lawful. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissal
- “‘No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Unfair Grounds for Dismissal (Drunk Driving · Refusal of Job Transfer)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (security screening · entry clearance), violation of company policy · non‑compliance with work orders, 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Withdrawal of Remedy Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (security screening · entry clearance) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (Security Screening · Entry Clearance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the issue of “disciplinary severity (security screening · entry clearance)” was ultimately concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae1305 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.15 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since the employee granted entry clearance (입문 조치) to a vehicle without access authorization and to prohibited items, the grounds for discipline in this case are recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer imposed a suspension from duty as a disciplinary measure on the ground that the employee had granted entry clearance to a vehicle without access authorization and to prohibited items. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The employer prevailed at first instance, and the Central Labor Relations Commission, on re‑examination, upheld the first-instance decision, finding the discipline to be justified.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the conduct of an employee performing security screening duties—granting entry clearance to a vehicle without access authorization and to prohibited items—constitutes grounds for discipline, and whether the resulting suspension (as the level of discipline) and the disciplinary procedures are lawful.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: the fact that the employee actually granted entry clearance to a vehicle without access authorization and to prohibited items was established; the conduct caused a loss of trust and business disadvantage to the employer in the form of a written warning from the client company; and the employee failed to comply with the basic security procedures set out in the work manual.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the grounds for discipline in this case were established.
In addition, the employer, in line with the purport of the Labor Relations Commission’s decision, had already reduced the level of discipline to a suspension; considering the nature of the grounds for discipline, the resulting damage, and the importance of workplace security, it was difficult to regard the disciplinary measure as markedly excessive by social standards. In light of the case law on criteria for determining the appropriateness of disciplinary severity (comprehensive consideration of the content and nature of the grounds for discipline, its purpose, and all surrounding circumstances), the Commission found that there was no abuse or excess of discretionary authority. On this basis, the appropriateness of the disciplinary severity was recognized.
Furthermore, the employer had cancelled the previous disciplinary measure and notified the employee of this in writing; prior to imposing the suspension, the employer gave advance notice of appearance, convened a disciplinary committee, and adopted a resolution; and the employer delivered a written notice of discipline specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline. Taking these factors together, the Commission held that the disciplinary procedures were lawful, satisfying the legal principles under the Labor Standards Act on written notice and the opportunity to be heard in cases of dismissal and discipline, as well as the purport of the work rules and collective agreement.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held not to be unfair, as the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the disciplinary severity, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures were all recognized.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees engaged in high‑risk duties such as security, safety, and asset protection should bear in mind that violations of work manuals and security procedures may be regarded as serious grounds for discipline, even if they are characterized as simple mistakes. In particular, where the duties are linked to contractual relationships with client companies, any warning or claim received from a client may operate to the employee’s disadvantage when determining the level of discipline. It is therefore important to thoroughly familiarize oneself with the manuals, participate in training, and strictly follow the reporting procedures to superiors in suspicious situations.
Employees should also carefully check procedural aspects, such as whether any previous disciplinary measure has been cancelled, and whether proper notice of appearance before the disciplinary committee and written notice of the grounds for discipline have been given. In cases where procedures are largely in place, the core issue will be proving that the level of discipline is markedly excessive by social standards, and response strategies should be formulated with this in mind.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to prepare specific and easy‑to‑understand work manuals for duties related to security and safety, and to repeatedly provide training and written notice of their contents to employees so that the existence and content of “basic security procedures” are clearly established. With respect to disciplinary severity, employers should maintain internal disciplinary guidelines and, while comprehensively considering the specific risk level of the violation, the potential for deterioration of relationships with client companies, and the level of discipline in past similar cases, keep records that can demonstrate that the level of discipline was set at a level not excessive by social standards.
In the disciplinary process, employers should clearly organize the handling of prior disciplinary measures (including whether they were cancelled), and must in practice—not only in form—comply with the procedures required by the Labor Standards Act and the work rules, such as advance notice of the disciplinary committee, providing an opportunity to appear and explain, and written notice specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline. Doing so will make it easier to obtain recognition of the legitimacy of the discipline before the Labor Relations Commission.
This Central Labor Relations Commission precedent is a good example of the legal approach in unfair dismissal disputes of separately, and then comprehensively, examining the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of disciplinary severity, and the lawfulness of disciplinary procedures. When dealing with similar matters, working from an early stage with experienced professionals in unfair dismissal and redundancy cases, such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to organize the facts and procedures will be of great help in preventing and responding to disputes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since the employee granted entry clearance to a vehicle without access authorization and to prohibited items, the grounds for discipline in this case are recognized.
B. Appropriateness of disciplinary severity
The employer in this case reduced the disciplinary severity in accordance with the purport of our Commission’s decision; the employer received a written warning from the client company due to the grounds for discipline in this case; and the employee failed to comply with the basic security procedures set out in the work manual. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the form of abuse or excess of discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of disciplinary procedures
The employer in this case delivered to the employee a notice of cancellation of the previous disciplinary measure on 6 March 2025; gave advance notice of appearance concerning the suspension in this case and convened a disciplinary committee, which adopted a resolution; and delivered a written notice of discipline specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline. Therefore, the disciplinary procedures in this case are lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Since the employee granted entry clearance to a vehicle without access authorization and to prohibited items, the grounds for discipline in this case are recognized.
B. Appropriateness of disciplinary severity
The employer in this case reduced the disciplinary severity in accordance with the purport of our Commission’s decision; the employer received a written warning from the client company due to the grounds for discipline in this case; and the employee failed to comply with the basic security procedures set out in the work manual. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the form of abuse or excess of discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of disciplinary procedures
The employer in this case delivered to the employee a notice of cancellation of the previous disciplinary measure on 6 March 2025; gave advance notice of appearance concerning the suspension in this case and convened a disciplinary committee, which adopted a resolution; and delivered a written notice of discipline specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline. Therefore, the disciplinary procedures in this case are lawful. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissal
- “‘No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Unfair Grounds for Dismissal (Drunk Driving · Refusal of Job Transfer)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (security screening · entry clearance), violation of company policy · non‑compliance with work orders, 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Withdrawal of Remedy Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (security screening · entry clearance) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (Security Screening · Entry Clearance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
