Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Commuting · Leaving the Workplace)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 224)
- Date2026/02/22 04:04
- Read 229
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “disciplinary severity (commuting · leaving the workplace).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1293 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.10 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
① Failure to process commuting records in the ERP system, ② early departure during working hours, ③ failure to undergo a special medical examination, and ④ leaving the workplace during working hours constitute violations of basic work rules and the duty of good faith. As the employee also admitted all of these, it was held that the employer was justified in treating them as grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was referred to the disciplinary committee and received a two‑month suspension from duty on the grounds of failure to process commuting records in the ERP system, early departure during working hours, failure to undergo a special medical examination, and leaving the workplace during working hours. The employee then applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the suspension was an unfair disciplinary action equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the initial decision and found the employer’s disciplinary action to be justified. Accordingly, the employee’s application for re‑examination for remedy of unfair dismissal was dismissed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employee’s violations of basic work rules are acknowledged, a two‑month suspension from duty constitutes an unfair dismissal or unfair disciplinary action that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and whether there were any procedural defects in the course of the disciplinary proceedings.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that all of the employee’s misconduct—failure to process commuting records in the ERP system, early departure, failure to undergo a special medical examination, and leaving the workplace during working hours—was established; that these acts, as violations of basic work rules and the duty of good faith, could not be regarded as minor; that, compared with co‑workers who were also disciplined, the level of discipline was not clearly disproportionate; and that, under the relevant rules, a two‑month suspension from duty did not deviate from the prescribed disciplinary severity standards and could be increased where multiple grounds for discipline were concurrent.
In light of the above, the panel held that this dismissal‑type disciplinary measure could not be regarded as an unfair dismissal in which the employer’s discretionary power to impose discipline was exercised in a manner that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, thereby departing from or abusing such discretion.
The panel also found that, apart from the fact that the employee voluntarily waived the opportunity to present explanations during the disciplinary process, there was no indication that the employer violated the rules governing disciplinary procedures. Therefore, procedural fairness was also recognized.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that commuting records, compliance with working hours, leaving the workplace, and compliance with statutory and special medical examinations are all evaluated as “basic rules,” and that, when multiple violations accumulate, they can lead to serious disciplinary measures such as suspension from duty.
When given an opportunity to present explanations in a disciplinary procedure, instead of emotionally refusing, it is important to fully explain the facts, circumstances, remorse, and willingness to improve, as these will serve as important materials for the subsequent judgment of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the grounds for discipline and standards of disciplinary severity in relation to commuting management, leaving the workplace, and violations of the obligation to undergo medical examinations, and to impose discipline consistently in accordance with those standards.
The employer should document the convening of the disciplinary committee, prior notice, and the opportunity to present explanations, and maintain records so that it can objectively explain parity with co‑workers who are also disciplined and whether an increase was applied where multiple grounds for discipline were concurrent. Doing so will make it easier to obtain recognition of the legitimacy of the disciplinary action before the Labor Relations Commission.
This Central Labor Relations Commission decision is a good example of how, in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal disputes, the existence of grounds for discipline, the reasonableness of the level of discipline in light of social norms, and compliance with disciplinary procedures are examined comprehensively.
In similar cases, both employees and companies should, from the early stages, consult sufficiently with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, in order to organize the facts, secure evidence, and conduct legal analysis in parallel.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Progress of Procedures
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
① Failure to process commuting records in the ERP system, ② early departure during working hours, ③ failure to undergo a special medical examination, and ④ leaving the workplace during working hours constitute violations of basic work rules and the duty of good faith, and as the employee admitted all of these, it is deemed justified for the employer to treat them as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The employee argued that the grounds for discipline were minor and that, compared with the level of discipline imposed on co‑workers who were also disciplined, a two‑month suspension from duty was excessively severe. However, in light of the facts that all grounds for discipline against the employee were established; that these grounds cannot be regarded as minor; that, compared with the level of discipline imposed on co‑workers, it is difficult to see the measure as contrary to the principle of equality; that, in determining the level of discipline, the personnel committee is not bound by the audit office’s request for a disciplinary resolution; and that, under the relevant rules, the suspension in question did not deviate from the standards of disciplinary severity and an increase is possible where two or more grounds for discipline are concurrent, the two‑month suspension from duty cannot be regarded as an unlawful measure that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms and thus constitutes a departure from or abuse of discretionary power.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
Apart from the fact that the employee voluntarily waived the opportunity to present explanations during the disciplinary process, there is no evidence that the employer violated the disciplinary procedures. Therefore, it is determined that there were no procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
① Failure to process commuting records in the ERP system, ② early departure during working hours, ③ failure to undergo a special medical examination, and ④ leaving the workplace during working hours constitute violations of basic work rules and the duty of good faith, and as the employee admitted all of these, it is deemed justified for the employer to treat them as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The employee argued that the grounds for discipline were minor and that, compared with the level of discipline imposed on co‑workers who were also disciplined, a two‑month suspension from duty was excessively severe. However, in light of the facts that all grounds for discipline against the employee were established; that these grounds cannot be regarded as minor; that, compared with the level of discipline imposed on co‑workers, it is difficult to see the measure as contrary to the principle of equality; that, in determining the level of discipline, the personnel committee is not bound by the audit office’s request for a disciplinary resolution; and that, under the relevant rules, the suspension in question did not deviate from the standards of disciplinary severity and an increase is possible where two or more grounds for discipline are concurrent, the two‑month suspension from duty cannot be regarded as an unlawful measure that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms and thus constitutes a departure from or abuse of discretionary power.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
Apart from the fact that the employee voluntarily waived the opportunity to present explanations during the disciplinary process, there is no evidence that the employer violated the disciplinary procedures. Therefore, it is determined that there were no procedural defects. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Case (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (commuting · leaving the workplace), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Daily Worker Paid on a One‑Day Basis)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (commuting · leaving the workplace) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Commuting · Leaving the Workplace).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “disciplinary severity (commuting · leaving the workplace).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1293 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.10 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
① Failure to process commuting records in the ERP system, ② early departure during working hours, ③ failure to undergo a special medical examination, and ④ leaving the workplace during working hours constitute violations of basic work rules and the duty of good faith. As the employee also admitted all of these, it was held that the employer was justified in treating them as grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was referred to the disciplinary committee and received a two‑month suspension from duty on the grounds of failure to process commuting records in the ERP system, early departure during working hours, failure to undergo a special medical examination, and leaving the workplace during working hours. The employee then applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the suspension was an unfair disciplinary action equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the initial decision and found the employer’s disciplinary action to be justified. Accordingly, the employee’s application for re‑examination for remedy of unfair dismissal was dismissed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employee’s violations of basic work rules are acknowledged, a two‑month suspension from duty constitutes an unfair dismissal or unfair disciplinary action that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and whether there were any procedural defects in the course of the disciplinary proceedings.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that all of the employee’s misconduct—failure to process commuting records in the ERP system, early departure, failure to undergo a special medical examination, and leaving the workplace during working hours—was established; that these acts, as violations of basic work rules and the duty of good faith, could not be regarded as minor; that, compared with co‑workers who were also disciplined, the level of discipline was not clearly disproportionate; and that, under the relevant rules, a two‑month suspension from duty did not deviate from the prescribed disciplinary severity standards and could be increased where multiple grounds for discipline were concurrent.
In light of the above, the panel held that this dismissal‑type disciplinary measure could not be regarded as an unfair dismissal in which the employer’s discretionary power to impose discipline was exercised in a manner that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, thereby departing from or abusing such discretion.
The panel also found that, apart from the fact that the employee voluntarily waived the opportunity to present explanations during the disciplinary process, there was no indication that the employer violated the rules governing disciplinary procedures. Therefore, procedural fairness was also recognized.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that commuting records, compliance with working hours, leaving the workplace, and compliance with statutory and special medical examinations are all evaluated as “basic rules,” and that, when multiple violations accumulate, they can lead to serious disciplinary measures such as suspension from duty.
When given an opportunity to present explanations in a disciplinary procedure, instead of emotionally refusing, it is important to fully explain the facts, circumstances, remorse, and willingness to improve, as these will serve as important materials for the subsequent judgment of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the grounds for discipline and standards of disciplinary severity in relation to commuting management, leaving the workplace, and violations of the obligation to undergo medical examinations, and to impose discipline consistently in accordance with those standards.
The employer should document the convening of the disciplinary committee, prior notice, and the opportunity to present explanations, and maintain records so that it can objectively explain parity with co‑workers who are also disciplined and whether an increase was applied where multiple grounds for discipline were concurrent. Doing so will make it easier to obtain recognition of the legitimacy of the disciplinary action before the Labor Relations Commission.
This Central Labor Relations Commission decision is a good example of how, in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal disputes, the existence of grounds for discipline, the reasonableness of the level of discipline in light of social norms, and compliance with disciplinary procedures are examined comprehensively.
In similar cases, both employees and companies should, from the early stages, consult sufficiently with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, in order to organize the facts, secure evidence, and conduct legal analysis in parallel.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Progress of Procedures
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
① Failure to process commuting records in the ERP system, ② early departure during working hours, ③ failure to undergo a special medical examination, and ④ leaving the workplace during working hours constitute violations of basic work rules and the duty of good faith, and as the employee admitted all of these, it is deemed justified for the employer to treat them as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The employee argued that the grounds for discipline were minor and that, compared with the level of discipline imposed on co‑workers who were also disciplined, a two‑month suspension from duty was excessively severe. However, in light of the facts that all grounds for discipline against the employee were established; that these grounds cannot be regarded as minor; that, compared with the level of discipline imposed on co‑workers, it is difficult to see the measure as contrary to the principle of equality; that, in determining the level of discipline, the personnel committee is not bound by the audit office’s request for a disciplinary resolution; and that, under the relevant rules, the suspension in question did not deviate from the standards of disciplinary severity and an increase is possible where two or more grounds for discipline are concurrent, the two‑month suspension from duty cannot be regarded as an unlawful measure that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms and thus constitutes a departure from or abuse of discretionary power.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
Apart from the fact that the employee voluntarily waived the opportunity to present explanations during the disciplinary process, there is no evidence that the employer violated the disciplinary procedures. Therefore, it is determined that there were no procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
① Failure to process commuting records in the ERP system, ② early departure during working hours, ③ failure to undergo a special medical examination, and ④ leaving the workplace during working hours constitute violations of basic work rules and the duty of good faith, and as the employee admitted all of these, it is deemed justified for the employer to treat them as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The employee argued that the grounds for discipline were minor and that, compared with the level of discipline imposed on co‑workers who were also disciplined, a two‑month suspension from duty was excessively severe. However, in light of the facts that all grounds for discipline against the employee were established; that these grounds cannot be regarded as minor; that, compared with the level of discipline imposed on co‑workers, it is difficult to see the measure as contrary to the principle of equality; that, in determining the level of discipline, the personnel committee is not bound by the audit office’s request for a disciplinary resolution; and that, under the relevant rules, the suspension in question did not deviate from the standards of disciplinary severity and an increase is possible where two or more grounds for discipline are concurrent, the two‑month suspension from duty cannot be regarded as an unlawful measure that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms and thus constitutes a departure from or abuse of discretionary power.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
Apart from the fact that the employee voluntarily waived the opportunity to present explanations during the disciplinary process, there is no evidence that the employer violated the disciplinary procedures. Therefore, it is determined that there were no procedural defects. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Case (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (commuting · leaving the workplace), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Daily Worker Paid on a One‑Day Basis)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (commuting · leaving the workplace) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Commuting · Leaving the Workplace).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
