Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Unauthorized Removal of Urea Solution)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 239)
- Date2026/02/27 04:04
- Read 212
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized removal of urea solution).”
Decision-making body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal Case No. 232 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.22 · Outcome: Fully upheld (application fully granted)
Summary of key issues:
a. Legitimacy of the placement on standby duty: The business necessity for the standby duty was not substantial, whereas the employee suffered considerable economic disadvantage as a result. Therefore, the standby duty disposition in this case was unjust.
b. Existence of grounds for discipline: It was acknowledged that the employee removed one bottle of urea solution, and thus grounds for discipline were legitimate.
c. [Implied] Appropriateness of the level of discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was subjected to disciplinary proceedings after removing, without authorization, one bottle of urea solution used for a company vehicle. The employee was placed on standby duty, suspended from duty for one month, and subjected to punitive removal from position, and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the grounds of unfair dismissal, etc.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined together (i) whether the dismissal and placement on standby duty were unfair, (ii) whether grounds for discipline existed, (iii) whether the level of discipline was appropriate, and (iv) whether there were any procedural defects in the disciplinary process, and rendered a decision fully granting the employee’s application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the misconduct of unauthorized removal of one bottle of urea solution is acknowledged, whether the employer’s imposition of standby duty, one-month suspension, punitive removal from position, and subsequent dismissal is justified in light of business necessity and the degree of misconduct, and whether, if there are procedural defects in the disciplinary process, the dismissal and discipline can be deemed unfair.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer’s placement of the employee on standby duty had little business necessity, while causing the employee considerable economic disadvantage such as reduced wages; that the punitive removal from position was not provided for in the rules of employment and thus violated those rules; and that the quorum for the disciplinary resolution and the executing authority clearly violated the procedures set out in the rules of employment.
Although the fact that the employee removed one bottle of urea solution was acknowledged and thus grounds for discipline existed, the panel took into account that the urea solution was returned and the employer did not suffer any actual economic loss, that the employee did not obtain any personal gain, that the employee submitted a written statement acknowledging the removal and expressing deep remorse, that the employee had no prior disciplinary record, and that in past similar cases the employer had never imposed suspension as a disciplinary measure.
In light of the above, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair because the level of discipline was excessive and there were serious procedural defects.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even the removal of company property that may appear trivial can constitute grounds for discipline. Therefore, any use or removal of company property should always be preceded by prior approval and properly documented.
Even where misconduct is acknowledged, in disputes over unfair dismissal or unfair discipline, it is crucial to identify and argue concretely how factors that affect the level of discipline—such as whether the employer actually suffered loss, whether the employee obtained any benefit, the employee’s remorse, prior disciplinary history, and the employer’s past disciplinary practice—are present in the specific case.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, it is necessary to clearly distinguish, in terms of legal nature, whether personnel measures such as placement on standby duty, removal from position, and suspension are mere personnel orders or disciplinary measures, and to specify in detail in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the legal basis and procedures for each.
When determining the level of discipline, if the employer fails to consider not only the seriousness of the misconduct but also whether actual loss occurred, the employee’s remorse and career, and consistency with the company’s past disciplinary precedents, there is a significant risk that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will find “excessive disciplinary measure” and rule that the dismissal or discipline is unfair.
This type of decision shows that, in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases, the Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviews the business necessity of standby duty and the employee’s livelihood-related disadvantage, the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and compliance with disciplinary procedures. Accordingly, in responding to similar cases, it is very important to establish an initial response strategy in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Legitimacy of the placement on standby duty
The business necessity for the standby duty was not substantial, whereas the employee suffered considerable economic disadvantage as a result. Therefore, the standby duty disposition in this case was unjust.
b. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was acknowledged that the employee removed one bottle of urea solution, and thus grounds for discipline were legitimate.
c. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given that former team leader Lee ○○ returned the urea solution and the employer did not suffer economic loss, that the employee did not obtain any personal gain, that the employee submitted a written statement acknowledging the removal and expressing deep remorse, that the employee had no prior disciplinary record, and that, in light of the employer’s past disciplinary cases, there had been no instance where suspension was imposed, the one-month suspension was excessive. Furthermore, the punitive removal from position, which was not provided for in the rules of employment, constituted a violation of those rules.
d. Illegality of the disciplinary procedure
In complying with the quorum requirement for the disciplinary resolution, the employer violated the rules of employment and other underlying provisions, and the execution of the disciplinary resolution was carried out by the chair of the disciplinary committee rather than the representative director. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were not observed and were therefore unlawful.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Legitimacy of the placement on standby duty
The business necessity for the standby duty was not substantial, whereas the employee suffered considerable economic disadvantage as a result. Therefore, the standby duty disposition in this case was unjust.
b. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was acknowledged that the employee removed one bottle of urea solution, and thus grounds for discipline were legitimate.
c. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given that former team leader Lee ○○ returned the urea solution and the employer did not suffer economic loss, that the employee did not obtain any personal gain, that the employee submitted a written statement acknowledging the removal and expressing deep remorse, that the employee had no prior disciplinary record, and that, in light of the employer’s past disciplinary cases, there had been no instance where suspension was imposed, the one-month suspension was excessive. Furthermore, the punitive removal from position, which was not provided for in the rules of employment, constituted a violation of those rules.
d. Illegality of the disciplinary procedure
In complying with the quorum requirement for the disciplinary resolution, the employer violated the rules of employment and other underlying provisions, and the execution of the disciplinary resolution was carried out by the chair of the disciplinary committee rather than the representative director. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were not observed and were therefore unlawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized removal of urea solution), disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary action), violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, others, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Defects in Level and Procedure of Discipline (Deposit of Accounting Funds by Management Office)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized removal of urea solution) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Unauthorized Removal of Urea Solution).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized removal of urea solution).”
Decision-making body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal Case No. 232 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.22 · Outcome: Fully upheld (application fully granted)
Summary of key issues:
a. Legitimacy of the placement on standby duty: The business necessity for the standby duty was not substantial, whereas the employee suffered considerable economic disadvantage as a result. Therefore, the standby duty disposition in this case was unjust.
b. Existence of grounds for discipline: It was acknowledged that the employee removed one bottle of urea solution, and thus grounds for discipline were legitimate.
c. [Implied] Appropriateness of the level of discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was subjected to disciplinary proceedings after removing, without authorization, one bottle of urea solution used for a company vehicle. The employee was placed on standby duty, suspended from duty for one month, and subjected to punitive removal from position, and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the grounds of unfair dismissal, etc.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined together (i) whether the dismissal and placement on standby duty were unfair, (ii) whether grounds for discipline existed, (iii) whether the level of discipline was appropriate, and (iv) whether there were any procedural defects in the disciplinary process, and rendered a decision fully granting the employee’s application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the misconduct of unauthorized removal of one bottle of urea solution is acknowledged, whether the employer’s imposition of standby duty, one-month suspension, punitive removal from position, and subsequent dismissal is justified in light of business necessity and the degree of misconduct, and whether, if there are procedural defects in the disciplinary process, the dismissal and discipline can be deemed unfair.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer’s placement of the employee on standby duty had little business necessity, while causing the employee considerable economic disadvantage such as reduced wages; that the punitive removal from position was not provided for in the rules of employment and thus violated those rules; and that the quorum for the disciplinary resolution and the executing authority clearly violated the procedures set out in the rules of employment.
Although the fact that the employee removed one bottle of urea solution was acknowledged and thus grounds for discipline existed, the panel took into account that the urea solution was returned and the employer did not suffer any actual economic loss, that the employee did not obtain any personal gain, that the employee submitted a written statement acknowledging the removal and expressing deep remorse, that the employee had no prior disciplinary record, and that in past similar cases the employer had never imposed suspension as a disciplinary measure.
In light of the above, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair because the level of discipline was excessive and there were serious procedural defects.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even the removal of company property that may appear trivial can constitute grounds for discipline. Therefore, any use or removal of company property should always be preceded by prior approval and properly documented.
Even where misconduct is acknowledged, in disputes over unfair dismissal or unfair discipline, it is crucial to identify and argue concretely how factors that affect the level of discipline—such as whether the employer actually suffered loss, whether the employee obtained any benefit, the employee’s remorse, prior disciplinary history, and the employer’s past disciplinary practice—are present in the specific case.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, it is necessary to clearly distinguish, in terms of legal nature, whether personnel measures such as placement on standby duty, removal from position, and suspension are mere personnel orders or disciplinary measures, and to specify in detail in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the legal basis and procedures for each.
When determining the level of discipline, if the employer fails to consider not only the seriousness of the misconduct but also whether actual loss occurred, the employee’s remorse and career, and consistency with the company’s past disciplinary precedents, there is a significant risk that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will find “excessive disciplinary measure” and rule that the dismissal or discipline is unfair.
This type of decision shows that, in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases, the Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviews the business necessity of standby duty and the employee’s livelihood-related disadvantage, the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and compliance with disciplinary procedures. Accordingly, in responding to similar cases, it is very important to establish an initial response strategy in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Legitimacy of the placement on standby duty
The business necessity for the standby duty was not substantial, whereas the employee suffered considerable economic disadvantage as a result. Therefore, the standby duty disposition in this case was unjust.
b. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was acknowledged that the employee removed one bottle of urea solution, and thus grounds for discipline were legitimate.
c. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given that former team leader Lee ○○ returned the urea solution and the employer did not suffer economic loss, that the employee did not obtain any personal gain, that the employee submitted a written statement acknowledging the removal and expressing deep remorse, that the employee had no prior disciplinary record, and that, in light of the employer’s past disciplinary cases, there had been no instance where suspension was imposed, the one-month suspension was excessive. Furthermore, the punitive removal from position, which was not provided for in the rules of employment, constituted a violation of those rules.
d. Illegality of the disciplinary procedure
In complying with the quorum requirement for the disciplinary resolution, the employer violated the rules of employment and other underlying provisions, and the execution of the disciplinary resolution was carried out by the chair of the disciplinary committee rather than the representative director. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were not observed and were therefore unlawful.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Legitimacy of the placement on standby duty
The business necessity for the standby duty was not substantial, whereas the employee suffered considerable economic disadvantage as a result. Therefore, the standby duty disposition in this case was unjust.
b. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was acknowledged that the employee removed one bottle of urea solution, and thus grounds for discipline were legitimate.
c. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given that former team leader Lee ○○ returned the urea solution and the employer did not suffer economic loss, that the employee did not obtain any personal gain, that the employee submitted a written statement acknowledging the removal and expressing deep remorse, that the employee had no prior disciplinary record, and that, in light of the employer’s past disciplinary cases, there had been no instance where suspension was imposed, the one-month suspension was excessive. Furthermore, the punitive removal from position, which was not provided for in the rules of employment, constituted a violation of those rules.
d. Illegality of the disciplinary procedure
In complying with the quorum requirement for the disciplinary resolution, the employer violated the rules of employment and other underlying provisions, and the execution of the disciplinary resolution was carried out by the chair of the disciplinary committee rather than the representative director. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were not observed and were therefore unlawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized removal of urea solution), disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary action), violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, others, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Defects in Level and Procedure of Discipline (Deposit of Accounting Funds by Management Office)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized removal of urea solution) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Unauthorized Removal of Urea Solution).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
