Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Performance Evaluation · Defect in Consent to Work Rules)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 221)
- Date2026/02/21 04:15
- Read 216
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (performance evaluation · defect in consent to work rules).”
Decision Committee: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9035 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.10 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: Among the provisions cited as grounds for disciplinary action, Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment could not serve as a basis for dismissal because the employer failed to prove that it had obtained the consent of a majority of employees in the process of amending the Rules of Employment to introduce that provision. Article 28(13) of the Collective Agreement could not be interpreted as encompassing Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment in light of the circumstances surrounding the introduction of that clause. Furthermore, even considering the employee’s performance evaluation results, it was not recognized that it had become difficult, under social norms, to maintain the employment relationship…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer dismissed an employee for alleged poor performance and other reasons by way of disciplinary dismissal. Before the Labor Relations Commission, the issues in dispute were whether the employee’s conduct fell within the grounds for disciplinary action under the Rules of Employment and the Collective Agreement, and whether those provisions themselves were valid and effective. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission assessed the legitimacy of the dismissal by comprehensively examining whether the employer had proven majority employee consent when amending the Rules of Employment, the relationship between the disciplinary grounds in the Collective Agreement and those in the Rules of Employment, and the level of the employee’s performance evaluations.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is “in a dismissal based on alleged poor performance, whether the provisions on grounds for disciplinary dismissal in the Rules of Employment and the Collective Agreement were validly established and applicable, and whether the employee’s performance level constituted grounds for disciplinary dismissal to such an extent that, under social norms, it had become difficult to maintain the employment relationship.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
With respect to Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment, which the employer cited as the basis for dismissal, the panel held that the provision could not serve as a ground for dismissal because the employer failed to prove that it had obtained the consent of a majority of employees in the process of amending the Rules of Employment to introduce that clause. It further found that, in light of the background to the introduction of Article 28(13) of the Collective Agreement, it was difficult to regard that provision as encompassing the above provision of the Rules of Employment. The panel also determined that, based solely on the employee’s performance evaluation results, it was difficult to conclude that the situation had reached a level where, under social norms, it had become difficult to continue the employment relationship, and thus that the provision could not serve as a ground for dismissal.
In addition, the panel found that Article 20(1) of the Rules of Employment and Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Code of Conduct did not fall under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in Article 28 of the Collective Agreement and therefore could not serve as grounds for dismissal.
Ultimately, the panel held that there were no valid grounds for disciplinary dismissal applicable to the employee in the Collective Agreement, the Rules of Employment, or the Code of Conduct, and that there were no circumstances recognized as making it impossible, under social norms, to continue the employment relationship. Accordingly, it ruled that the dismissal in this case was unfair because no grounds for disciplinary action existed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, when contesting an unfair dismissal, it is necessary to carefully check whether your conduct in fact falls within the grounds for disciplinary dismissal enumerated in the Collective Agreement and the Rules of Employment, and whether those provisions were validly enacted or amended through lawful procedures (such as obtaining the consent of a majority of employees).
In particular, in cases of redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal based on poor performance, you should bear in mind that low performance scores alone are generally insufficient to conclude that, under social norms, the situation has reached a level where it is difficult to maintain the employment relationship.
When filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, it is important to secure materials such as your performance evaluation history, records regarding whether you were provided with opportunities for training and guidance, and comparative data with employees in similar positions. On that basis, you should clearly argue whether the case concerns “mere poor performance” or “serious misconduct or marked incompetence sufficient to justify dismissal.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when seeking to introduce new grounds for disciplinary action or expand the scope of disciplinary measures by amending the Rules of Employment in a way that is disadvantageous to employees, you must secure evidence—such as minutes of meetings and signature sheets—demonstrating that you lawfully obtained the consent of a majority of employees or the consent of the labor union.
In workplaces where the grounds for disciplinary action are prescribed in a Collective Agreement, you should, in advance, review whether dismissals can be based on other provisions in the Rules of Employment or the Code of Conduct, and carefully consider the principle that the Collective Agreement takes precedence.
In particular, when planning disciplinary dismissal or redundancy dismissal on the grounds of poor performance, you should first implement step-by-step measures such as performance management over a certain period, assignment of targets and feedback, requests for improvement, and training or reassignment. You must also be able to prove with objective data that, despite such measures, the situation has deteriorated to the point where it is difficult to maintain the employment relationship, in order to more easily obtain recognition of the dismissal’s legitimacy before the Labor Relations Commission.
To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to fully understand the legal principles governing disadvantageous amendments to the Rules of Employment related to unfair dismissal, the order of precedence between the Collective Agreement and the Rules of Employment, the specification of grounds for disciplinary action, and the standards for the legitimacy of dismissal under social norms. Employers should organize the facts and evidence in advance in line with these legal principles. We recommend that you review and refine your Rules of Employment, Collective Agreement, and disciplinary/dismissal procedures in advance with the assistance of a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Among the provisions cited as grounds for disciplinary action, Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment could not serve as a basis for dismissal because the employer failed to prove that it had obtained the consent of a majority of employees in the process of amending the Rules of Employment to introduce that provision. Article 28(13) of the Collective Agreement could not serve as a basis for dismissal because, in light of the process by which that provision was newly established, it could not be regarded as encompassing Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment, and even in view of the employee’s performance evaluation results, it was not deemed to have reached a level where, under social norms, it had become difficult to maintain the employment relationship. In addition, Article 20(1) of the Rules of Employment and Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Code of Conduct did not fall under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in Article 28 of the Collective Agreement and thus could not serve as grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal of the employee was unfair due to the non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Among the provisions cited as grounds for disciplinary action, Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment could not serve as a basis for dismissal because the employer failed to prove that it had obtained the consent of a majority of employees in the process of amending the Rules of Employment to introduce that provision. Article 28(13) of the Collective Agreement could not serve as a basis for dismissal because, in light of the process by which that provision was newly established, it could not be regarded as encompassing Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment, and even in view of the employee’s performance evaluation results, it was not deemed to have reached a level where, under social norms, it had become difficult to maintain the employment relationship. In addition, Article 20(1) of the Rules of Employment and Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Code of Conduct did not fall under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in Article 28 of the Collective Agreement and thus could not serve as grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal of the employee was unfair due to the non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (performance evaluation · defect in consent to work rules), disciplinary dismissal, HR evaluation · poor performance, 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, “‘Excessive Severity of Disciplinary Measure (Violation of Procedures for Selecting 3PL Provider)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (performance evaluation · defect in consent to work rules) in the “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Performance Evaluation · Defect in Consent to Work Rules).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (performance evaluation · defect in consent to work rules).”
Decision Committee: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9035 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.10 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: Among the provisions cited as grounds for disciplinary action, Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment could not serve as a basis for dismissal because the employer failed to prove that it had obtained the consent of a majority of employees in the process of amending the Rules of Employment to introduce that provision. Article 28(13) of the Collective Agreement could not be interpreted as encompassing Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment in light of the circumstances surrounding the introduction of that clause. Furthermore, even considering the employee’s performance evaluation results, it was not recognized that it had become difficult, under social norms, to maintain the employment relationship…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer dismissed an employee for alleged poor performance and other reasons by way of disciplinary dismissal. Before the Labor Relations Commission, the issues in dispute were whether the employee’s conduct fell within the grounds for disciplinary action under the Rules of Employment and the Collective Agreement, and whether those provisions themselves were valid and effective. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission assessed the legitimacy of the dismissal by comprehensively examining whether the employer had proven majority employee consent when amending the Rules of Employment, the relationship between the disciplinary grounds in the Collective Agreement and those in the Rules of Employment, and the level of the employee’s performance evaluations.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is “in a dismissal based on alleged poor performance, whether the provisions on grounds for disciplinary dismissal in the Rules of Employment and the Collective Agreement were validly established and applicable, and whether the employee’s performance level constituted grounds for disciplinary dismissal to such an extent that, under social norms, it had become difficult to maintain the employment relationship.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
With respect to Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment, which the employer cited as the basis for dismissal, the panel held that the provision could not serve as a ground for dismissal because the employer failed to prove that it had obtained the consent of a majority of employees in the process of amending the Rules of Employment to introduce that clause. It further found that, in light of the background to the introduction of Article 28(13) of the Collective Agreement, it was difficult to regard that provision as encompassing the above provision of the Rules of Employment. The panel also determined that, based solely on the employee’s performance evaluation results, it was difficult to conclude that the situation had reached a level where, under social norms, it had become difficult to continue the employment relationship, and thus that the provision could not serve as a ground for dismissal.
In addition, the panel found that Article 20(1) of the Rules of Employment and Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Code of Conduct did not fall under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in Article 28 of the Collective Agreement and therefore could not serve as grounds for dismissal.
Ultimately, the panel held that there were no valid grounds for disciplinary dismissal applicable to the employee in the Collective Agreement, the Rules of Employment, or the Code of Conduct, and that there were no circumstances recognized as making it impossible, under social norms, to continue the employment relationship. Accordingly, it ruled that the dismissal in this case was unfair because no grounds for disciplinary action existed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, when contesting an unfair dismissal, it is necessary to carefully check whether your conduct in fact falls within the grounds for disciplinary dismissal enumerated in the Collective Agreement and the Rules of Employment, and whether those provisions were validly enacted or amended through lawful procedures (such as obtaining the consent of a majority of employees).
In particular, in cases of redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal based on poor performance, you should bear in mind that low performance scores alone are generally insufficient to conclude that, under social norms, the situation has reached a level where it is difficult to maintain the employment relationship.
When filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, it is important to secure materials such as your performance evaluation history, records regarding whether you were provided with opportunities for training and guidance, and comparative data with employees in similar positions. On that basis, you should clearly argue whether the case concerns “mere poor performance” or “serious misconduct or marked incompetence sufficient to justify dismissal.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when seeking to introduce new grounds for disciplinary action or expand the scope of disciplinary measures by amending the Rules of Employment in a way that is disadvantageous to employees, you must secure evidence—such as minutes of meetings and signature sheets—demonstrating that you lawfully obtained the consent of a majority of employees or the consent of the labor union.
In workplaces where the grounds for disciplinary action are prescribed in a Collective Agreement, you should, in advance, review whether dismissals can be based on other provisions in the Rules of Employment or the Code of Conduct, and carefully consider the principle that the Collective Agreement takes precedence.
In particular, when planning disciplinary dismissal or redundancy dismissal on the grounds of poor performance, you should first implement step-by-step measures such as performance management over a certain period, assignment of targets and feedback, requests for improvement, and training or reassignment. You must also be able to prove with objective data that, despite such measures, the situation has deteriorated to the point where it is difficult to maintain the employment relationship, in order to more easily obtain recognition of the dismissal’s legitimacy before the Labor Relations Commission.
To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to fully understand the legal principles governing disadvantageous amendments to the Rules of Employment related to unfair dismissal, the order of precedence between the Collective Agreement and the Rules of Employment, the specification of grounds for disciplinary action, and the standards for the legitimacy of dismissal under social norms. Employers should organize the facts and evidence in advance in line with these legal principles. We recommend that you review and refine your Rules of Employment, Collective Agreement, and disciplinary/dismissal procedures in advance with the assistance of a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Among the provisions cited as grounds for disciplinary action, Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment could not serve as a basis for dismissal because the employer failed to prove that it had obtained the consent of a majority of employees in the process of amending the Rules of Employment to introduce that provision. Article 28(13) of the Collective Agreement could not serve as a basis for dismissal because, in light of the process by which that provision was newly established, it could not be regarded as encompassing Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment, and even in view of the employee’s performance evaluation results, it was not deemed to have reached a level where, under social norms, it had become difficult to maintain the employment relationship. In addition, Article 20(1) of the Rules of Employment and Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Code of Conduct did not fall under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in Article 28 of the Collective Agreement and thus could not serve as grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal of the employee was unfair due to the non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Among the provisions cited as grounds for disciplinary action, Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment could not serve as a basis for dismissal because the employer failed to prove that it had obtained the consent of a majority of employees in the process of amending the Rules of Employment to introduce that provision. Article 28(13) of the Collective Agreement could not serve as a basis for dismissal because, in light of the process by which that provision was newly established, it could not be regarded as encompassing Article 74(15) of the Rules of Employment, and even in view of the employee’s performance evaluation results, it was not deemed to have reached a level where, under social norms, it had become difficult to maintain the employment relationship. In addition, Article 20(1) of the Rules of Employment and Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Code of Conduct did not fall under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in Article 28 of the Collective Agreement and thus could not serve as grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal of the employee was unfair due to the non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (performance evaluation · defect in consent to work rules), disciplinary dismissal, HR evaluation · poor performance, 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, “‘Excessive Severity of Disciplinary Measure (Violation of Procedures for Selecting 3PL Provider)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (performance evaluation · defect in consent to work rules) in the “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Performance Evaluation · Defect in Consent to Work Rules).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
