Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent on “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Violation of 3PL Vendor Selection Procedure)” (Unfair Dismissal 220)
- Date2026/02/20 04:15
- Read 225
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (violation of 3PL vendor selection procedure).”
Adjudicating Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal3426 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.10 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Justifiability of grounds for discipline
The employer’s grounds for dismissal of the employee can be broadly categorized into three: (i) issues related to the 3PL vendor bidding and selection, (ii) exertion of improper pressure on an external vendor, and (iii) issues among internal employees. However, all of these grounds for dismissal are difficult to accept as they stand, because, based solely on the evidence submitted by the employer, they are not clearly proven or specifically identified, and objective evidence is lacking. That said, with respect to ground (i), it is recognized as a ground for discipline that the employee failed to properly follow the company’s internal procedures and that internal reporting procedures were inadequate…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose after an employer summarily dismissed an employee on the grounds of procedural violations in the process of selecting a 3PL logistics vendor, exerting pressure on an external vendor, and conflicts among internal employees, whereupon the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged some of the grounds for discipline, but focused its determination on whether dismissal was a justifiable level of disciplinary measure.
In this article, drawing on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, we整理 the legal principles on unfair dismissal and disciplinary measures highlighted by this precedent.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where some misconduct is recognized in the form of violations of internal procedures during the 3PL vendor selection process, the Labor Relations Commission can regard summary dismissal as a justifiable disciplinary measure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the grounds for dismissal asserted by the employer—namely, serious issues related to the 3PL vendor bidding and selection, exertion of improper pressure on an external vendor, and issues among internal employees—were not clearly proven or specifically identified based on the evidence submitted, and that objective evidence was lacking. It further noted that the 3PL vendor selection was ultimately finalized through the approval procedures of the employee’s superiors and management, and that there was no proven circumstance that the employee obtained any personal financial gain or caused actual loss to the company in the course of the 3PL vendor selection.
Accordingly, while it recognized as grounds for discipline that the employee failed to properly follow the procedures prescribed in the internal regulations and that reporting was inadequate, it determined that the degree of misconduct was not so serious as to make it impossible to continue the employment relationship under social norms. It also found that there were no significant defects in the disciplinary procedures, given that the employer formed an investigation committee to conduct an inquiry and afforded the employee an opportunity to make statements at the personnel committee. Nevertheless, it held that the level of discipline—summary dismissal—was excessively severe to the extent of constituting an abuse of discretionary authority, and therefore ruled that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that even if some misconduct such as procedural violations or inadequate reporting is recognized, the justifiability of dismissal will vary depending on the degree and consequences of the misconduct, the actual damage caused to the company, and whether there was any financial gain.
The Labor Relations Commission assesses not only whether grounds for discipline exist, but also, separately, whether the level of discipline is markedly excessive under social norms—i.e., whether there has been an abuse of disciplinary discretion. Therefore, when filing an application for remedy, it is important to systematically organize and submit materials relating to the circumstances of one’s conduct, whether superiors approved the actions, and whether any damage actually occurred.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, before deciding on summary dismissal, it is necessary to comprehensively review: (i) whether each ground for discipline can be proven with specific facts and evidence; (ii) which ground for discipline under the rules of employment the misconduct falls under; and (iii) whether corporate order can be maintained through less severe sanctions such as wage reduction or suspension.
In particular, if multiple grounds of misconduct are listed but the individual grounds are not sufficiently proven and the employer proceeds directly to dismissal, there is a high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find unfair dismissal on the basis of “excessive disciplinary measure.” Accordingly, the process and basis for determining the level of discipline should be documented.
To prevail in this type of unfair dismissal dispute, it is crucial to have an accurate understanding of the Supreme Court’s legal principles that: (i) the burden of proof for grounds for discipline lies with the employer; and (ii) summary dismissal is justified only when there are serious grounds such that the employment relationship cannot be maintained under social norms. It is essential to meticulously construct and整理 the facts in line with these standards.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Justifiability of Grounds for Discipline
The grounds for dismissal of the employee can be broadly categorized into three: (i) issues related to the 3PL vendor bidding and selection, (ii) exertion of improper pressure on an external vendor, and (iii) issues among internal employees. However, all of these grounds for dismissal are difficult to accept as they stand, because, based solely on the evidence submitted by the employer, they are not clearly proven or specifically identified, and objective evidence is lacking. That said, with respect to ground (i), it is recognized as a ground for discipline that the employee failed to properly follow the company’s internal procedures and that internal reporting procedures were inadequate.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
While it is recognized as a ground for discipline that, in the course of selecting the 3PL vendor, the employee failed to properly follow the procedures prescribed in the company’s internal regulations and that internal reporting procedures were inadequate, it appears that the 3PL vendor was ultimately selected through the approval of the employee’s superiors and management. In addition, considering that it has not been clearly proven that the employee obtained any personal financial gain or caused actual loss to the company in the course of the 3PL vendor selection, it is difficult to regard the employee’s misconduct as so serious as to warrant dismissal.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
Given that the employer formed an investigation committee to conduct an inquiry and that the employee was afforded an opportunity to attend the personnel committee and make statements, it is difficult to find that there were significant defects in the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Justifiability of Grounds for Discipline
The grounds for dismissal of the employee can be broadly categorized into three: (i) issues related to the 3PL vendor bidding and selection, (ii) exertion of improper pressure on an external vendor, and (iii) issues among internal employees. However, all of these grounds for dismissal are difficult to accept as they stand, because, based solely on the evidence submitted by the employer, they are not clearly proven or specifically identified, and objective evidence is lacking. That said, with respect to ground (i), it is recognized as a ground for discipline that the employee failed to properly follow the company’s internal procedures and that internal reporting procedures were inadequate.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
While it is recognized as a ground for discipline that, in the course of selecting the 3PL vendor, the employee failed to properly follow the procedures prescribed in the company’s internal regulations and that internal reporting procedures were inadequate, it appears that the 3PL vendor was ultimately selected through the approval of the employee’s superiors and management. In addition, considering that it has not been clearly proven that the employee obtained any personal financial gain or caused actual loss to the company in the course of the 3PL vendor selection, it is difficult to regard the employee’s misconduct as so serious as to warrant dismissal.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
Given that the employer formed an investigation committee to conduct an inquiry and that the employee was afforded an opportunity to attend the personnel committee and make statements, it is difficult to find that there were significant defects in the disciplinary procedures.
/
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Disciplinary Measure (Request to Change Scope of Research Services)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Cleaning Services)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (violation of 3PL vendor selection procedure), summary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work orders, 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 Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Cleaning Services)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to excessive disciplinary measure (violation of 3PL vendor selection procedure) can be viewed together under “List of Precedents on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Violation of 3PL Vendor Selection Procedure).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (violation of 3PL vendor selection procedure).”
Adjudicating Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal3426 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.10 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Justifiability of grounds for discipline
The employer’s grounds for dismissal of the employee can be broadly categorized into three: (i) issues related to the 3PL vendor bidding and selection, (ii) exertion of improper pressure on an external vendor, and (iii) issues among internal employees. However, all of these grounds for dismissal are difficult to accept as they stand, because, based solely on the evidence submitted by the employer, they are not clearly proven or specifically identified, and objective evidence is lacking. That said, with respect to ground (i), it is recognized as a ground for discipline that the employee failed to properly follow the company’s internal procedures and that internal reporting procedures were inadequate…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose after an employer summarily dismissed an employee on the grounds of procedural violations in the process of selecting a 3PL logistics vendor, exerting pressure on an external vendor, and conflicts among internal employees, whereupon the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged some of the grounds for discipline, but focused its determination on whether dismissal was a justifiable level of disciplinary measure.
In this article, drawing on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, we整理 the legal principles on unfair dismissal and disciplinary measures highlighted by this precedent.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where some misconduct is recognized in the form of violations of internal procedures during the 3PL vendor selection process, the Labor Relations Commission can regard summary dismissal as a justifiable disciplinary measure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the grounds for dismissal asserted by the employer—namely, serious issues related to the 3PL vendor bidding and selection, exertion of improper pressure on an external vendor, and issues among internal employees—were not clearly proven or specifically identified based on the evidence submitted, and that objective evidence was lacking. It further noted that the 3PL vendor selection was ultimately finalized through the approval procedures of the employee’s superiors and management, and that there was no proven circumstance that the employee obtained any personal financial gain or caused actual loss to the company in the course of the 3PL vendor selection.
Accordingly, while it recognized as grounds for discipline that the employee failed to properly follow the procedures prescribed in the internal regulations and that reporting was inadequate, it determined that the degree of misconduct was not so serious as to make it impossible to continue the employment relationship under social norms. It also found that there were no significant defects in the disciplinary procedures, given that the employer formed an investigation committee to conduct an inquiry and afforded the employee an opportunity to make statements at the personnel committee. Nevertheless, it held that the level of discipline—summary dismissal—was excessively severe to the extent of constituting an abuse of discretionary authority, and therefore ruled that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that even if some misconduct such as procedural violations or inadequate reporting is recognized, the justifiability of dismissal will vary depending on the degree and consequences of the misconduct, the actual damage caused to the company, and whether there was any financial gain.
The Labor Relations Commission assesses not only whether grounds for discipline exist, but also, separately, whether the level of discipline is markedly excessive under social norms—i.e., whether there has been an abuse of disciplinary discretion. Therefore, when filing an application for remedy, it is important to systematically organize and submit materials relating to the circumstances of one’s conduct, whether superiors approved the actions, and whether any damage actually occurred.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, before deciding on summary dismissal, it is necessary to comprehensively review: (i) whether each ground for discipline can be proven with specific facts and evidence; (ii) which ground for discipline under the rules of employment the misconduct falls under; and (iii) whether corporate order can be maintained through less severe sanctions such as wage reduction or suspension.
In particular, if multiple grounds of misconduct are listed but the individual grounds are not sufficiently proven and the employer proceeds directly to dismissal, there is a high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find unfair dismissal on the basis of “excessive disciplinary measure.” Accordingly, the process and basis for determining the level of discipline should be documented.
To prevail in this type of unfair dismissal dispute, it is crucial to have an accurate understanding of the Supreme Court’s legal principles that: (i) the burden of proof for grounds for discipline lies with the employer; and (ii) summary dismissal is justified only when there are serious grounds such that the employment relationship cannot be maintained under social norms. It is essential to meticulously construct and整理 the facts in line with these standards.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Justifiability of Grounds for Discipline
The grounds for dismissal of the employee can be broadly categorized into three: (i) issues related to the 3PL vendor bidding and selection, (ii) exertion of improper pressure on an external vendor, and (iii) issues among internal employees. However, all of these grounds for dismissal are difficult to accept as they stand, because, based solely on the evidence submitted by the employer, they are not clearly proven or specifically identified, and objective evidence is lacking. That said, with respect to ground (i), it is recognized as a ground for discipline that the employee failed to properly follow the company’s internal procedures and that internal reporting procedures were inadequate.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
While it is recognized as a ground for discipline that, in the course of selecting the 3PL vendor, the employee failed to properly follow the procedures prescribed in the company’s internal regulations and that internal reporting procedures were inadequate, it appears that the 3PL vendor was ultimately selected through the approval of the employee’s superiors and management. In addition, considering that it has not been clearly proven that the employee obtained any personal financial gain or caused actual loss to the company in the course of the 3PL vendor selection, it is difficult to regard the employee’s misconduct as so serious as to warrant dismissal.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
Given that the employer formed an investigation committee to conduct an inquiry and that the employee was afforded an opportunity to attend the personnel committee and make statements, it is difficult to find that there were significant defects in the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Justifiability of Grounds for Discipline
The grounds for dismissal of the employee can be broadly categorized into three: (i) issues related to the 3PL vendor bidding and selection, (ii) exertion of improper pressure on an external vendor, and (iii) issues among internal employees. However, all of these grounds for dismissal are difficult to accept as they stand, because, based solely on the evidence submitted by the employer, they are not clearly proven or specifically identified, and objective evidence is lacking. That said, with respect to ground (i), it is recognized as a ground for discipline that the employee failed to properly follow the company’s internal procedures and that internal reporting procedures were inadequate.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
While it is recognized as a ground for discipline that, in the course of selecting the 3PL vendor, the employee failed to properly follow the procedures prescribed in the company’s internal regulations and that internal reporting procedures were inadequate, it appears that the 3PL vendor was ultimately selected through the approval of the employee’s superiors and management. In addition, considering that it has not been clearly proven that the employee obtained any personal financial gain or caused actual loss to the company in the course of the 3PL vendor selection, it is difficult to regard the employee’s misconduct as so serious as to warrant dismissal.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
Given that the employer formed an investigation committee to conduct an inquiry and that the employee was afforded an opportunity to attend the personnel committee and make statements, it is difficult to find that there were significant defects in the disciplinary procedures.
/
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Disciplinary Measure (Request to Change Scope of Research Services)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Cleaning Services)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (violation of 3PL vendor selection procedure), summary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work orders, 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 Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Cleaning Services)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to excessive disciplinary measure (violation of 3PL vendor selection procedure) can be viewed together under “List of Precedents on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Violation of 3PL Vendor Selection Procedure).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
