Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Leaving the Workplace · Refusal to Submit Written Explanation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 229)
- Date2026/02/23 04:13
- Read 225
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee ultimately prevailed (full relief granted) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (leaving the workplace · refusal to submit written explanation).”
[Case Information]
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision where the employee prevailed (full recognition) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (leaving the workplace · refusal to submit written explanation).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9083 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.29 · Result: Full recognition
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s (i) abnormal departure from the workplace and loss of contact on 1 July 2025, and (ii) refusal to submit a written explanation on 2 July 2025 constitute grounds for discipline. However, (iii) three consecutive years of lowest performance results, and (iv) two instances of inappropriate work performance in 2023 and 2025 do not constitute grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was disciplined for, among other things, abnormally leaving the workplace and becoming unreachable, and refusing to submit a written explanation requested by the company. The case was brought before the Labor Relations Commission as an unfair dismissal dispute, focusing on whether the level of discipline was appropriate and whether the alleged conduct actually constituted grounds for discipline.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged certain acts of misconduct as grounds for discipline, but centered its review on whether the level of discipline imposed—three months’ wage reduction—was appropriate.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were: in a situation where misconduct such as leaving the workplace, becoming unreachable, and refusing to submit a written explanation did occur, (i) whether three consecutive years of lowest performance results and past inappropriate work performance could also be regarded as grounds for discipline, and (ii) if only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were recognized, whether the disciplinary measure of three months’ wage reduction was justified as a proper exercise of the employer’s discretion.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel found that the employee’s abnormal departure from the workplace and loss of contact on 1 July 2025, and refusal to submit a written explanation on 2 July 2025, violated the employer’s legitimate work instructions and therefore constituted grounds for discipline.
On the other hand, the panel did not recognize three consecutive years of lowest performance results and the inappropriate work performance in 2023 and 2025 as grounds for discipline, in light of the general legal principle that poor work performance or low results alone are not easily deemed grounds for discipline.
Taking into account that only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established, and that three months’ wage reduction was, in light of the nature and degree of the misconduct, markedly excessive by social standards and thus an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in determining disciplinary measures, the panel concluded that:
The dismissal in this case was unfair because, although some grounds for discipline existed, the level of discipline imposed was excessive.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that violations of the employer’s basic right to direct and supervise work—such as unauthorized departure from the workplace, becoming unreachable, or refusing without just cause to submit a written explanation—may be recognized as grounds for discipline by the Labor Relations Commission.
However, long-term poor performance or abstract “lack of work ability” will not readily constitute grounds for discipline unless supported by objective data and evidence that opportunities for improvement were provided.
Furthermore, if the level of discipline is excessively severe compared to the degree of misconduct, there may be room to challenge the measure as unfair dismissal (unfair discipline) by filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, when imposing disciplinary measures, it is important to clearly organize, for each fact intended to be included as a ground for discipline, its correspondence with the rules of employment and HR regulations, the possibility of objective proof, and, in cases of poor work performance, whether opportunities for improvement were provided.
In determining the level of discipline—such as wage reduction, suspension, or dismissal—the company should comprehensively consider the content and nature of the misconduct, the motive and circumstances, the likelihood of recurrence, and the employee’s past work attitude, and ensure that the measure is not markedly excessive by social standards, thereby maintaining a “balance in the level of discipline.” If there is a disciplinary guideline table, applying it consistently will help prevent disputes.
This decision is a case frequently encountered in the field by Labor Law Firm Law&, involving unfair dismissal and disciplinary actions, and it clearly illustrates how the Labor Relations Commission distinguishes between (i) the scope of recognition of grounds for discipline and (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline. If a similar matter is anticipated or already underway, sufficient early-stage organization of relevant evidence and legal analysis is advisable.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s (i) abnormal departure from the workplace and loss of contact on 1 July 2025, and (ii) refusal to submit a written explanation on 2 July 2025 constitute grounds for discipline. However, (iii) three consecutive years of lowest performance results, and (iv) two instances of inappropriate work performance in 2023 and 2025 do not constitute grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Imposing a disciplinary measure of three months’ wage reduction based only on the partially recognized grounds for discipline is deemed unlawful, as the level of discipline is excessive in light of the degree of misconduct and thus exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary power in determining disciplinary measures.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Since the employee was given an opportunity to explain and neither party raised any further objections regarding the disciplinary procedure, it was determined that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s (i) abnormal departure from the workplace and loss of contact on 1 July 2025, and (ii) refusal to submit a written explanation on 2 July 2025 constitute grounds for discipline. However, (iii) three consecutive years of lowest performance results, and (iv) two instances of inappropriate work performance in 2023 and 2025 do not constitute grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Imposing a disciplinary measure of three months’ wage reduction based only on the partially recognized grounds for discipline is deemed unlawful, as the level of discipline is excessive in light of the degree of misconduct and thus exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary power in determining disciplinary measures.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Since the employee was given an opportunity to explain and neither party raised any further objections regarding the disciplinary procedure, it was determined that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Disciplinary Measure (Hospital Suspension for Workplace Harassment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (leaving the workplace · refusal to submit written explanation), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, performance 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, “‘Disciplinary Measure (Hospital Suspension for Workplace Harassment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (leaving the workplace · refusal to submit written explanation) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Leaving the Workplace · Refusal to Submit Written Explanation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision where the employee prevailed (full recognition) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (leaving the workplace · refusal to submit written explanation).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9083 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.29 · Result: Full recognition
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s (i) abnormal departure from the workplace and loss of contact on 1 July 2025, and (ii) refusal to submit a written explanation on 2 July 2025 constitute grounds for discipline. However, (iii) three consecutive years of lowest performance results, and (iv) two instances of inappropriate work performance in 2023 and 2025 do not constitute grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was disciplined for, among other things, abnormally leaving the workplace and becoming unreachable, and refusing to submit a written explanation requested by the company. The case was brought before the Labor Relations Commission as an unfair dismissal dispute, focusing on whether the level of discipline was appropriate and whether the alleged conduct actually constituted grounds for discipline.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged certain acts of misconduct as grounds for discipline, but centered its review on whether the level of discipline imposed—three months’ wage reduction—was appropriate.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were: in a situation where misconduct such as leaving the workplace, becoming unreachable, and refusing to submit a written explanation did occur, (i) whether three consecutive years of lowest performance results and past inappropriate work performance could also be regarded as grounds for discipline, and (ii) if only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were recognized, whether the disciplinary measure of three months’ wage reduction was justified as a proper exercise of the employer’s discretion.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel found that the employee’s abnormal departure from the workplace and loss of contact on 1 July 2025, and refusal to submit a written explanation on 2 July 2025, violated the employer’s legitimate work instructions and therefore constituted grounds for discipline.
On the other hand, the panel did not recognize three consecutive years of lowest performance results and the inappropriate work performance in 2023 and 2025 as grounds for discipline, in light of the general legal principle that poor work performance or low results alone are not easily deemed grounds for discipline.
Taking into account that only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established, and that three months’ wage reduction was, in light of the nature and degree of the misconduct, markedly excessive by social standards and thus an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in determining disciplinary measures, the panel concluded that:
The dismissal in this case was unfair because, although some grounds for discipline existed, the level of discipline imposed was excessive.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that violations of the employer’s basic right to direct and supervise work—such as unauthorized departure from the workplace, becoming unreachable, or refusing without just cause to submit a written explanation—may be recognized as grounds for discipline by the Labor Relations Commission.
However, long-term poor performance or abstract “lack of work ability” will not readily constitute grounds for discipline unless supported by objective data and evidence that opportunities for improvement were provided.
Furthermore, if the level of discipline is excessively severe compared to the degree of misconduct, there may be room to challenge the measure as unfair dismissal (unfair discipline) by filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, when imposing disciplinary measures, it is important to clearly organize, for each fact intended to be included as a ground for discipline, its correspondence with the rules of employment and HR regulations, the possibility of objective proof, and, in cases of poor work performance, whether opportunities for improvement were provided.
In determining the level of discipline—such as wage reduction, suspension, or dismissal—the company should comprehensively consider the content and nature of the misconduct, the motive and circumstances, the likelihood of recurrence, and the employee’s past work attitude, and ensure that the measure is not markedly excessive by social standards, thereby maintaining a “balance in the level of discipline.” If there is a disciplinary guideline table, applying it consistently will help prevent disputes.
This decision is a case frequently encountered in the field by Labor Law Firm Law&, involving unfair dismissal and disciplinary actions, and it clearly illustrates how the Labor Relations Commission distinguishes between (i) the scope of recognition of grounds for discipline and (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline. If a similar matter is anticipated or already underway, sufficient early-stage organization of relevant evidence and legal analysis is advisable.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s (i) abnormal departure from the workplace and loss of contact on 1 July 2025, and (ii) refusal to submit a written explanation on 2 July 2025 constitute grounds for discipline. However, (iii) three consecutive years of lowest performance results, and (iv) two instances of inappropriate work performance in 2023 and 2025 do not constitute grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Imposing a disciplinary measure of three months’ wage reduction based only on the partially recognized grounds for discipline is deemed unlawful, as the level of discipline is excessive in light of the degree of misconduct and thus exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary power in determining disciplinary measures.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Since the employee was given an opportunity to explain and neither party raised any further objections regarding the disciplinary procedure, it was determined that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s (i) abnormal departure from the workplace and loss of contact on 1 July 2025, and (ii) refusal to submit a written explanation on 2 July 2025 constitute grounds for discipline. However, (iii) three consecutive years of lowest performance results, and (iv) two instances of inappropriate work performance in 2023 and 2025 do not constitute grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Imposing a disciplinary measure of three months’ wage reduction based only on the partially recognized grounds for discipline is deemed unlawful, as the level of discipline is excessive in light of the degree of misconduct and thus exceeds the scope of the employer’s discretionary power in determining disciplinary measures.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
Since the employee was given an opportunity to explain and neither party raised any further objections regarding the disciplinary procedure, it was determined that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Disciplinary Measure (Hospital Suspension for Workplace Harassment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (leaving the workplace · refusal to submit written explanation), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, performance 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, “‘Disciplinary Measure (Hospital Suspension for Workplace Harassment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (leaving the workplace · refusal to submit written explanation) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Leaving the Workplace · Refusal to Submit Written Explanation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
