Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity and Procedural Defects (Management Office Accounting Deposits)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 238)
- Date2026/02/26 04:13
- Read 224
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “disciplinary severity and procedural defects (management office accounting deposits).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9162 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.22 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline: As to the alleged ground of discipline “① Violation of procedures for interim settlement of retirement benefits,” the position of management office director was vacant at the time, and the then chair of the residents’ representative council, who was the final approving authority, had approved the interim settlement. Accordingly, this cannot constitute a ground for discipline. The alleged grounds “③ Failure to comply with work instructions and omission of reporting” and “④ Basic work attitude issues and damage to organizational order” are improper as there is no objective evidence. However, the ground “② Errors in accounting treatment and deposit of public funds …”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns whether the employer’s disciplinary suspension and dismissal of an employee of a multi-family housing management office were lawful, as contested before the Labor Relations Commission. The Commission comprehensively examined multiple grounds for discipline—interim settlement of retirement benefits, accounting treatment and deposit of public funds, non-compliance with work instructions, basic work attitude—together with the appropriateness of the level of discipline and the legality of the disciplinary procedures.
The key issue in this case is:
“In a situation where some violations in accounting treatment are acknowledged, whether the level of discipline is excessively severe by social standards, and whether unfair dismissal is established where there are defects in the disciplinary procedures.”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are, first, among the multiple grounds for discipline raised—violation of procedures for interim settlement of retirement benefits, errors in accounting treatment and deposit of public funds, failure to comply with work instructions, and basic work attitude problems—which of these are objectively proven. Second, whether the level of discipline, such as suspension and dismissal, is manifestly excessive by social standards in light of the acknowledged misconduct (receiving KRW 160,000 as compensation for a welding machine into a personal account and failing to reflect it in the expenditure resolution). Third, whether the employer complied with the disciplinary procedures stipulated in the service regulations, such as hearing the employee’s opinion and anonymous voting, and what effect any procedural defects have on the validity of the disciplinary disposition.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case noted that the position of management office director was vacant at the time, that the chair of the residents’ representative council as the final approving authority had approved the interim settlement of retirement benefits, and that there was no objective evidence regarding the alleged failure to comply with work instructions, omission of reporting, and basic work attitude problems. On the other hand, the act of receiving KRW 160,000 as compensation for a welding machine into a personal account and failing to reflect it in the expenditure resolution clearly constituted a violation of procedures for accounting treatment and deposit of public funds. However, the entire amount was used to purchase management office supplies such as a welding mask and welding rods, thereby restoring any substantive loss. Furthermore, the employer failed to comply with the service regulations requiring that the employee subject to discipline be heard and that decisions be made by anonymous vote, thereby failing to guarantee sufficient opportunity for explanation and submission of favorable evidence.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair, as only part of the grounds for discipline were established, the level of discipline was excessive in relation to the misconduct, and the procedural defects were serious.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, in work involving company property such as accounting treatment or deposit of public funds, even where the actual use of funds is legitimate, procedural violations alone—such as receipt into a personal account or omission of supporting documents—can constitute grounds for discipline. However, not all grounds for discipline asserted by the employer are automatically accepted. Items for which there is no objective evidence can be fully contested before the Labor Relations Commission, and it is important to actively explain mitigating factors affecting the level of discipline, such as whether any loss has been remedied and whether the use of funds served a public or business purpose.
In addition, if procedures stipulated in the service regulations—such as hearing the employee’s opinion, attendance at the disciplinary committee, and the method of voting—have not been properly followed, this can become a core issue to challenge the validity of the discipline itself. Accordingly, employees should carefully keep records of what notices and opportunities were actually given during the process. When preparing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to structure arguments and evidence strategy by separating the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the procedures.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, even where some misconduct relating to accounting by an employee is acknowledged, the level of discipline must be set at a degree that is not manifestly excessive by social standards, taking into account the amount involved, the use of the funds, and whether any loss has been remedied. Where multiple grounds for discipline are bundled together in a single disciplinary action, if objective evidence is not secured for each ground, the entire discipline may be found unfair. Therefore, sufficient fact-finding and evidence collection should be conducted before imposing discipline.
In particular, where, as in this case, the service regulations stipulate specific disciplinary procedures such as hearing the opinion of the employee subject to discipline and anonymous voting, these function as requirements for the validity of the discipline and should not be treated as mere formalities; they must be faithfully implemented. Documenting the convening and resolutions of the disciplinary committee, the requests for attendance, and the provision of opportunities to explain will be of great assistance in proving the company’s legitimacy in subsequent disputes before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
To prevent disputes over unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal, employers should, in consultation with Labor Law Firm Law&, revise service and disciplinary regulations in advance and, when actually conducting disciplinary procedures, use a checklist to verify compliance with the procedures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
As to the ground for discipline “① Violation of procedures for interim settlement of retirement benefits,” since the position of management office director was vacant at the time and the then chair of the residents’ representative council as the final approving authority had approved the interim settlement, this cannot constitute a ground for discipline. The alleged grounds “③ Failure to comply with work instructions and omission of reporting” and “④ Basic work attitude issues and damage to organizational order” are improper as there is no objective evidence. However, the ground “② Errors in accounting treatment and deposit of public funds” is recognized as a ground for discipline, as the employee received the compensation for the welding machine into a personal account and failed to reflect it in the expenditure resolution, which clearly constitutes a violation of procedures for accounting treatment and deposit of public funds.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
With respect to “② Errors in accounting treatment and deposit of public funds,” the employee received KRW 160,000 from an external company and spent it to purchase a welding mask and welding rods necessary for welding, and used it properly for the purchase of management office supplies. This is considered a factor to be taken into account in determining the level of discipline, and the level of discipline is excessive in relation to the employee’s misconduct.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer did not guarantee the employee sufficient opportunity to explain as required under Article 44 (Hearing of Opinion of Person Subject to Discipline) of the service regulations, deprived the employee of the opportunity to present favorable evidence, and, when imposing the suspension, failed to decide by anonymous vote as required under Article 45 (Disciplinary Resolution) paragraph 1 of the service regulations. Therefore, the disciplinary procedures are improper.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
As to the ground for discipline “① Violation of procedures for interim settlement of retirement benefits,” since the position of management office director was vacant at the time and the then chair of the residents’ representative council as the final approving authority had approved the interim settlement, this cannot constitute a ground for discipline. The alleged grounds “③ Failure to comply with work instructions and omission of reporting” and “④ Basic work attitude issues and damage to organizational order” are improper as there is no objective evidence. However, the ground “② Errors in accounting treatment and deposit of public funds” is recognized as a ground for discipline, as the employee received the compensation for the welding machine into a personal account and failed to reflect it in the expenditure resolution, which clearly constitutes a violation of procedures for accounting treatment and deposit of public funds.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
With respect to “② Errors in accounting treatment and deposit of public funds,” the employee received KRW 160,000 from an external company and spent it to purchase a welding mask and welding rods necessary for welding, and used it properly for the purchase of management office supplies. This is considered a factor to be taken into account in determining the level of discipline, and the level of discipline is excessive in relation to the employee’s misconduct.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer did not guarantee the employee sufficient opportunity to explain as required under Article 44 (Hearing of Opinion of Person Subject to Discipline) of the service regulations, deprived the employee of the opportunity to present favorable evidence, and, when imposing the suspension, failed to decide by anonymous vote as required under Article 45 (Disciplinary Resolution) paragraph 1 of the service regulations. Therefore, the disciplinary procedures are improper. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Bullying and Abuse of Power over Partner Companies)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity and procedural defects (management office accounting deposits), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policies · 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Bullying and Abuse of Power over Partner Companies)”’, in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity and procedural defects (management office accounting deposits) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity and Procedural Defects (Management Office Accounting Deposits).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “disciplinary severity and procedural defects (management office accounting deposits).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9162 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.22 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline: As to the alleged ground of discipline “① Violation of procedures for interim settlement of retirement benefits,” the position of management office director was vacant at the time, and the then chair of the residents’ representative council, who was the final approving authority, had approved the interim settlement. Accordingly, this cannot constitute a ground for discipline. The alleged grounds “③ Failure to comply with work instructions and omission of reporting” and “④ Basic work attitude issues and damage to organizational order” are improper as there is no objective evidence. However, the ground “② Errors in accounting treatment and deposit of public funds …”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns whether the employer’s disciplinary suspension and dismissal of an employee of a multi-family housing management office were lawful, as contested before the Labor Relations Commission. The Commission comprehensively examined multiple grounds for discipline—interim settlement of retirement benefits, accounting treatment and deposit of public funds, non-compliance with work instructions, basic work attitude—together with the appropriateness of the level of discipline and the legality of the disciplinary procedures.
The key issue in this case is:
“In a situation where some violations in accounting treatment are acknowledged, whether the level of discipline is excessively severe by social standards, and whether unfair dismissal is established where there are defects in the disciplinary procedures.”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are, first, among the multiple grounds for discipline raised—violation of procedures for interim settlement of retirement benefits, errors in accounting treatment and deposit of public funds, failure to comply with work instructions, and basic work attitude problems—which of these are objectively proven. Second, whether the level of discipline, such as suspension and dismissal, is manifestly excessive by social standards in light of the acknowledged misconduct (receiving KRW 160,000 as compensation for a welding machine into a personal account and failing to reflect it in the expenditure resolution). Third, whether the employer complied with the disciplinary procedures stipulated in the service regulations, such as hearing the employee’s opinion and anonymous voting, and what effect any procedural defects have on the validity of the disciplinary disposition.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case noted that the position of management office director was vacant at the time, that the chair of the residents’ representative council as the final approving authority had approved the interim settlement of retirement benefits, and that there was no objective evidence regarding the alleged failure to comply with work instructions, omission of reporting, and basic work attitude problems. On the other hand, the act of receiving KRW 160,000 as compensation for a welding machine into a personal account and failing to reflect it in the expenditure resolution clearly constituted a violation of procedures for accounting treatment and deposit of public funds. However, the entire amount was used to purchase management office supplies such as a welding mask and welding rods, thereby restoring any substantive loss. Furthermore, the employer failed to comply with the service regulations requiring that the employee subject to discipline be heard and that decisions be made by anonymous vote, thereby failing to guarantee sufficient opportunity for explanation and submission of favorable evidence.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair, as only part of the grounds for discipline were established, the level of discipline was excessive in relation to the misconduct, and the procedural defects were serious.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, in work involving company property such as accounting treatment or deposit of public funds, even where the actual use of funds is legitimate, procedural violations alone—such as receipt into a personal account or omission of supporting documents—can constitute grounds for discipline. However, not all grounds for discipline asserted by the employer are automatically accepted. Items for which there is no objective evidence can be fully contested before the Labor Relations Commission, and it is important to actively explain mitigating factors affecting the level of discipline, such as whether any loss has been remedied and whether the use of funds served a public or business purpose.
In addition, if procedures stipulated in the service regulations—such as hearing the employee’s opinion, attendance at the disciplinary committee, and the method of voting—have not been properly followed, this can become a core issue to challenge the validity of the discipline itself. Accordingly, employees should carefully keep records of what notices and opportunities were actually given during the process. When preparing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to structure arguments and evidence strategy by separating the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the procedures.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, even where some misconduct relating to accounting by an employee is acknowledged, the level of discipline must be set at a degree that is not manifestly excessive by social standards, taking into account the amount involved, the use of the funds, and whether any loss has been remedied. Where multiple grounds for discipline are bundled together in a single disciplinary action, if objective evidence is not secured for each ground, the entire discipline may be found unfair. Therefore, sufficient fact-finding and evidence collection should be conducted before imposing discipline.
In particular, where, as in this case, the service regulations stipulate specific disciplinary procedures such as hearing the opinion of the employee subject to discipline and anonymous voting, these function as requirements for the validity of the discipline and should not be treated as mere formalities; they must be faithfully implemented. Documenting the convening and resolutions of the disciplinary committee, the requests for attendance, and the provision of opportunities to explain will be of great assistance in proving the company’s legitimacy in subsequent disputes before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
To prevent disputes over unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal, employers should, in consultation with Labor Law Firm Law&, revise service and disciplinary regulations in advance and, when actually conducting disciplinary procedures, use a checklist to verify compliance with the procedures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
As to the ground for discipline “① Violation of procedures for interim settlement of retirement benefits,” since the position of management office director was vacant at the time and the then chair of the residents’ representative council as the final approving authority had approved the interim settlement, this cannot constitute a ground for discipline. The alleged grounds “③ Failure to comply with work instructions and omission of reporting” and “④ Basic work attitude issues and damage to organizational order” are improper as there is no objective evidence. However, the ground “② Errors in accounting treatment and deposit of public funds” is recognized as a ground for discipline, as the employee received the compensation for the welding machine into a personal account and failed to reflect it in the expenditure resolution, which clearly constitutes a violation of procedures for accounting treatment and deposit of public funds.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
With respect to “② Errors in accounting treatment and deposit of public funds,” the employee received KRW 160,000 from an external company and spent it to purchase a welding mask and welding rods necessary for welding, and used it properly for the purchase of management office supplies. This is considered a factor to be taken into account in determining the level of discipline, and the level of discipline is excessive in relation to the employee’s misconduct.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer did not guarantee the employee sufficient opportunity to explain as required under Article 44 (Hearing of Opinion of Person Subject to Discipline) of the service regulations, deprived the employee of the opportunity to present favorable evidence, and, when imposing the suspension, failed to decide by anonymous vote as required under Article 45 (Disciplinary Resolution) paragraph 1 of the service regulations. Therefore, the disciplinary procedures are improper.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
As to the ground for discipline “① Violation of procedures for interim settlement of retirement benefits,” since the position of management office director was vacant at the time and the then chair of the residents’ representative council as the final approving authority had approved the interim settlement, this cannot constitute a ground for discipline. The alleged grounds “③ Failure to comply with work instructions and omission of reporting” and “④ Basic work attitude issues and damage to organizational order” are improper as there is no objective evidence. However, the ground “② Errors in accounting treatment and deposit of public funds” is recognized as a ground for discipline, as the employee received the compensation for the welding machine into a personal account and failed to reflect it in the expenditure resolution, which clearly constitutes a violation of procedures for accounting treatment and deposit of public funds.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
With respect to “② Errors in accounting treatment and deposit of public funds,” the employee received KRW 160,000 from an external company and spent it to purchase a welding mask and welding rods necessary for welding, and used it properly for the purchase of management office supplies. This is considered a factor to be taken into account in determining the level of discipline, and the level of discipline is excessive in relation to the employee’s misconduct.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer did not guarantee the employee sufficient opportunity to explain as required under Article 44 (Hearing of Opinion of Person Subject to Discipline) of the service regulations, deprived the employee of the opportunity to present favorable evidence, and, when imposing the suspension, failed to decide by anonymous vote as required under Article 45 (Disciplinary Resolution) paragraph 1 of the service regulations. Therefore, the disciplinary procedures are improper. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Bullying and Abuse of Power over Partner Companies)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity and procedural defects (management office accounting deposits), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policies · 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Bullying and Abuse of Power over Partner Companies)”’, in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity and procedural defects (management office accounting deposits) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity and Procedural Defects (Management Office Accounting Deposits).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
