Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Request to Change Research Service Tasks)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 218)
- Date2026/02/20 04:04
- Read 238
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (request to change research service tasks).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9017 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.10 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Core Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Although the research tasks for the commissioned research project had been finally confirmed through the Operations Committee, the employee contacted the requesting department without any internal reporting and repeatedly asked that only 2 out of the 5 tasks be selected. This caused serious confusion by leading the requesting department to mistakenly believe that the very implementation of the research needed to be reconsidered, thereby significantly undermining the relationship of trust between Ansan City and the employer. Accordingly, grounds for discipline were found to exist …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose at a research institute conducting policy research for Ansan City. A researcher was disciplined (reprimand) for attempting to unilaterally change the tasks of a commissioned research project, and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair discipline.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were whether: (i) the researcher’s attempt to unilaterally reduce or change the research tasks that had been finally confirmed through the Operations Committee constitutes grounds for discipline; (ii) even the lightest form of discipline (reprimand) amounts to an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in determining disciplinary severity; and (iii) the procedures of the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee complied with the prescribed disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case noted that, even though the research tasks for the commissioned research project had already been finally confirmed through the Operations Committee, the employee, without any internal reporting, directly contacted the requesting department and repeatedly asked that only 2 out of the 5 tasks be selected. As a result, the requesting department misunderstood that the very implementation of the research needed to be reconsidered, causing serious confusion and damage to the relationship of trust between Ansan City and the employer.
The panel further took into account that the purpose of establishing the research institute was to conduct policy research for Ansan City, that the employee did not acknowledge the misconduct or show any remorse during the explanation process before the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee, and that, despite this, the employer chose only the lightest form of discipline, namely a reprimand.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that there were grounds for discipline, that the level of discipline could not be regarded as manifestly lacking in reasonableness by social standards, and that the disciplinary procedures were lawful because sufficient opportunity to explain was provided before the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee and the relevant procedural rules were observed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When there is a need to change matters such as research service tasks that have already been finalized and notified externally, the employee must go through the internal reporting and approval procedures. Attempting to bypass these procedures and directly negotiate adjustments with an external institution may seriously damage the relationship of trust between the employer and the commissioning entity and thereby constitute grounds for discipline.
In addition, when appearing before an Audit Committee or Personnel Committee, it is important to explain the facts faithfully and, where appropriate, acknowledge and reflect on one’s mistakes. Such an attitude can serve as a significant mitigating factor in determining the level of discipline.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
In work where external trust is critical—such as research services and projects entrusted by public institutions—employers should clearly define the procedures for finalizing and changing tasks and the official channels for external communication, and provide repeated training on these procedures to prevent similar disputes.
When determining the level of discipline, employers should comprehensively consider the business purpose and nature, the impact of the misconduct on external trust, the employee’s attitude, and any prior disciplinary history. As seen in this case, where the employer chose the lightest form of discipline, labor relations commissions tend not to view such measures as an abuse of disciplinary discretion.
In this type of unfair dismissal/disciplinary case, it is crucial to understand precisely how the Labor Relations Commission and the courts structure their analysis, and to systematically organize relevant evidence and procedural records from the outset. Where necessary, it is advisable to design a response strategy with the assistance of a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Although the research tasks for the commissioned research project had been finally confirmed through the Operations Committee, the employee contacted the requesting department without any internal reporting and repeatedly requested that only 2 out of the 5 tasks be selected. This caused serious confusion by leading the requesting department to mistakenly believe that the very implementation of the research needed to be reconsidered, thereby significantly undermining the relationship of trust between Ansan City and the employer. Accordingly, grounds for discipline were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
In view of the facts that the employee’s misconduct significantly damaged the relationship of trust between Ansan City and the employer, that the purpose of establishing the research institute was to conduct policy research for Ansan City, that the employee did not acknowledge the grounds for discipline or show any remorse during the explanation process before the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee and thus appeared to lack any intention to reform, and that only the lightest form of discipline, a reprimand, was imposed, it is difficult to regard the discipline as exceeding the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employee was afforded sufficient opportunity to explain during the proceedings before the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee, and the employer appears to have complied with all relevant rules in the course of conducting the disciplinary process. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were deemed lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Although the research tasks for the commissioned research project had been finally confirmed through the Operations Committee, the employee contacted the requesting department without any internal reporting and repeatedly requested that only 2 out of the 5 tasks be selected. This caused serious confusion by leading the requesting department to mistakenly believe that the very implementation of the research needed to be reconsidered, thereby significantly undermining the relationship of trust between Ansan City and the employer. Accordingly, grounds for discipline were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
In view of the facts that the employee’s misconduct significantly damaged the relationship of trust between Ansan City and the employer, that the purpose of establishing the research institute was to conduct policy research for Ansan City, that the employee did not acknowledge the grounds for discipline or show any remorse during the explanation process before the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee and thus appeared to lack any intention to reform, and that only the lightest form of discipline, a reprimand, was imposed, it is difficult to regard the discipline as exceeding the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employee was afforded sufficient opportunity to explain during the proceedings before the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee, and the employer appears to have complied with all relevant rules in the course of conducting the disciplinary process. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were deemed lawful.
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: – Case Number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (request to change research service tasks), violation of company policy · failure to comply 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, ‘Statute of Repose Expired (Expiry of Fixed-Term Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision, in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (request to change research service tasks) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Request to Change Research Service Tasks).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (request to change research service tasks).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9017 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.10 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Core Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Although the research tasks for the commissioned research project had been finally confirmed through the Operations Committee, the employee contacted the requesting department without any internal reporting and repeatedly asked that only 2 out of the 5 tasks be selected. This caused serious confusion by leading the requesting department to mistakenly believe that the very implementation of the research needed to be reconsidered, thereby significantly undermining the relationship of trust between Ansan City and the employer. Accordingly, grounds for discipline were found to exist …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose at a research institute conducting policy research for Ansan City. A researcher was disciplined (reprimand) for attempting to unilaterally change the tasks of a commissioned research project, and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair discipline.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were whether: (i) the researcher’s attempt to unilaterally reduce or change the research tasks that had been finally confirmed through the Operations Committee constitutes grounds for discipline; (ii) even the lightest form of discipline (reprimand) amounts to an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in determining disciplinary severity; and (iii) the procedures of the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee complied with the prescribed disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case noted that, even though the research tasks for the commissioned research project had already been finally confirmed through the Operations Committee, the employee, without any internal reporting, directly contacted the requesting department and repeatedly asked that only 2 out of the 5 tasks be selected. As a result, the requesting department misunderstood that the very implementation of the research needed to be reconsidered, causing serious confusion and damage to the relationship of trust between Ansan City and the employer.
The panel further took into account that the purpose of establishing the research institute was to conduct policy research for Ansan City, that the employee did not acknowledge the misconduct or show any remorse during the explanation process before the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee, and that, despite this, the employer chose only the lightest form of discipline, namely a reprimand.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that there were grounds for discipline, that the level of discipline could not be regarded as manifestly lacking in reasonableness by social standards, and that the disciplinary procedures were lawful because sufficient opportunity to explain was provided before the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee and the relevant procedural rules were observed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When there is a need to change matters such as research service tasks that have already been finalized and notified externally, the employee must go through the internal reporting and approval procedures. Attempting to bypass these procedures and directly negotiate adjustments with an external institution may seriously damage the relationship of trust between the employer and the commissioning entity and thereby constitute grounds for discipline.
In addition, when appearing before an Audit Committee or Personnel Committee, it is important to explain the facts faithfully and, where appropriate, acknowledge and reflect on one’s mistakes. Such an attitude can serve as a significant mitigating factor in determining the level of discipline.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
In work where external trust is critical—such as research services and projects entrusted by public institutions—employers should clearly define the procedures for finalizing and changing tasks and the official channels for external communication, and provide repeated training on these procedures to prevent similar disputes.
When determining the level of discipline, employers should comprehensively consider the business purpose and nature, the impact of the misconduct on external trust, the employee’s attitude, and any prior disciplinary history. As seen in this case, where the employer chose the lightest form of discipline, labor relations commissions tend not to view such measures as an abuse of disciplinary discretion.
In this type of unfair dismissal/disciplinary case, it is crucial to understand precisely how the Labor Relations Commission and the courts structure their analysis, and to systematically organize relevant evidence and procedural records from the outset. Where necessary, it is advisable to design a response strategy with the assistance of a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Although the research tasks for the commissioned research project had been finally confirmed through the Operations Committee, the employee contacted the requesting department without any internal reporting and repeatedly requested that only 2 out of the 5 tasks be selected. This caused serious confusion by leading the requesting department to mistakenly believe that the very implementation of the research needed to be reconsidered, thereby significantly undermining the relationship of trust between Ansan City and the employer. Accordingly, grounds for discipline were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
In view of the facts that the employee’s misconduct significantly damaged the relationship of trust between Ansan City and the employer, that the purpose of establishing the research institute was to conduct policy research for Ansan City, that the employee did not acknowledge the grounds for discipline or show any remorse during the explanation process before the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee and thus appeared to lack any intention to reform, and that only the lightest form of discipline, a reprimand, was imposed, it is difficult to regard the discipline as exceeding the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employee was afforded sufficient opportunity to explain during the proceedings before the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee, and the employer appears to have complied with all relevant rules in the course of conducting the disciplinary process. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were deemed lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Although the research tasks for the commissioned research project had been finally confirmed through the Operations Committee, the employee contacted the requesting department without any internal reporting and repeatedly requested that only 2 out of the 5 tasks be selected. This caused serious confusion by leading the requesting department to mistakenly believe that the very implementation of the research needed to be reconsidered, thereby significantly undermining the relationship of trust between Ansan City and the employer. Accordingly, grounds for discipline were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
In view of the facts that the employee’s misconduct significantly damaged the relationship of trust between Ansan City and the employer, that the purpose of establishing the research institute was to conduct policy research for Ansan City, that the employee did not acknowledge the grounds for discipline or show any remorse during the explanation process before the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee and thus appeared to lack any intention to reform, and that only the lightest form of discipline, a reprimand, was imposed, it is difficult to regard the discipline as exceeding the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employee was afforded sufficient opportunity to explain during the proceedings before the Audit Committee and the Personnel Committee, and the employer appears to have complied with all relevant rules in the course of conducting the disciplinary process. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were deemed lawful.
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: – Case Number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (request to change research service tasks), violation of company policy · failure to comply 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, ‘Statute of Repose Expired (Expiry of Fixed-Term Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision, in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (request to change research service tasks) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Request to Change Research Service Tasks).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
