Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Disciplinary Quantum (In‑House Assault)” (Unfair Dismissal 244)
- Date2026/02/28 04:15
- Read 210
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary quantum (in‑house assault).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025Buhae9759 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.20 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) The parties’ assertions were in direct conflict as to the circumstances of the assault and as to which party was the victim or the assailant;
(2) There was an insufficient amount of objective evidence or witness statements supporting the employee’s assertions;
(3) Both parties suffered bodily injury.
In light of the foregoing, the conduct was recognized as in‑house violence constituting grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary quantum
The employer determined that the mutual assault had damaged organizational order and workplace discipline…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the company imposed a four‑month suspension from duty on an employee due to a mutual assault that occurred inside the company. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy, arguing that the suspension was an unfair disciplinary measure equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the disciplinary quantum, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ruled in favor of the employer. The case is an example in which the disciplinary principles repeatedly applied in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases were applied as they stand.
The employee argued that he was the victim and that the other party bore the greater responsibility for the assault. However, taking into account the limitations of the submitted evidence and statements, the Labor Relations Commission held that the in‑house violent conduct itself constituted grounds for discipline. Through this case, one can see how the disciplinary and unfair dismissal response principles accumulated by Labor Law Firm Law& are actually applied in practice.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was:
“In a situation involving mutual assault within the company, where it is unclear which party was the assailant and the evidence is insufficient, does a four‑month suspension from duty constitute an abuse of disciplinary authority to the extent of amounting to unfair dismissal?”
In addition, the following was also at issue:
“Is the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure established merely by the fact that first‑instance and second‑instance (appeal) personnel committees were convened, and how does the actual guarantee of the employee’s opportunity to present explanations affect the validity of the discipline?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held that, in light of (i) the fact that the parties’ assertions were in direct conflict as to the circumstances of the assault and as to which party was the victim or the assailant, (ii) the lack of sufficient objective evidence or witness statements supporting the employee’s unilateral assertions, and (iii) the fact that both parties suffered bodily injury, the in‑house violent conduct itself constituted grounds for discipline.
The panel further held that the disciplinary quantum did not amount to an abuse of discretion, taking into consideration: that the mutual assault had damaged organizational order and workplace discipline; that the employee had a prior record of personnel action for a similar incident; and that a four‑month suspension could not readily be viewed, under social norms, as grossly excessive.
In addition, the panel found the disciplinary procedure to be lawful, on the grounds that the employee had been given sufficient opportunity to present explanations before both the first‑instance and appeal personnel committees; that there was no indication that internal rules on disciplinary procedures had been violated; and that, although the burden of proof regarding compliance with disciplinary procedures generally lies with the employer, no circumstances indicating procedural violations were identified in this case.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, merely asserting “I am the victim” in an in‑house violence case is not sufficient. It is important to secure in advance objective materials supporting that assertion (such as medical certificates, CCTV footage, recordings, and written statements from surrounding witnesses). Where there is room for the incident to be evaluated as mutual assault, it is necessary to organize in detail the circumstances of the assault, whether there was a pre‑emptive attack, and the scope of defensive conduct, and to testify consistently to these points before the personnel committee.
When serious disciplinary measures such as suspension or pay reduction are imposed, it is advisable to consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline) only after comprehensively reviewing not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also whether the level of discipline is grossly excessive under social norms, taking into account prior disciplinary history, the nature of the duties, and consistency with similar cases within the company. In Labor Relations Commission proceedings, the key criterion is not whether “the discipline is somewhat heavy,” but whether it rises to the level of an abuse of discretion.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when an in‑house violence incident occurs, the company should not rely solely on one party’s statement. Rather, it should, to the extent possible, clarify whether the incident was mutual assault or one‑sided assault through investigations of all parties involved, interviews of witnesses, and the securing of objective evidence. On the premise that the burden of proof regarding the existence and degree of grounds for discipline lies with the employer, keeping records such as investigation reports, photographs, and CCTV captures will be of great assistance in responding before the Labor Relations Commission.
With respect to the disciplinary quantum, it is necessary to specify disciplinary standards for in‑house violence in the rules of employment and personnel regulations, and to determine the level of discipline in consideration of consistency with past similar cases. When operating personnel committees (first‑instance and appeal), employers should clearly secure procedural legitimacy by issuing attendance notices, providing opportunities to present explanations, and preparing minutes. Doing so will increase the likelihood of successfully defending against unfair dismissal and unfair discipline disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) The parties’ assertions were in direct conflict as to the circumstances of the assault and as to which party was the victim or the assailant;
(2) There was an insufficient amount of objective evidence or witness statements supporting the employee’s assertions;
(3) Both parties suffered bodily injury.
In light of the foregoing, the conduct was recognized as in‑house violence constituting grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary quantum
In light of the facts that the mutual assault damaged organizational order and workplace discipline, and that the employee had a prior record of personnel action for a similar incident, the four‑month suspension imposed on the employee could not readily be viewed, under social norms, as grossly excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
The disciplinary procedure was lawful because the employee had been given sufficient opportunity to present explanations before both the first‑instance and appeal personnel committees, and there were no defects in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) The parties’ assertions were in direct conflict as to the circumstances of the assault and as to which party was the victim or the assailant;
(2) There was an insufficient amount of objective evidence or witness statements supporting the employee’s assertions;
(3) Both parties suffered bodily injury.
In light of the foregoing, the conduct was recognized as in‑house violence constituting grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary quantum
In light of the facts that the mutual assault damaged organizational order and workplace discipline, and that the employee had a prior record of personnel action for a similar incident, the four‑month suspension imposed on the employee could not readily be viewed, under social norms, as grossly excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
The disciplinary procedure was lawful because the employee had been given sufficient opportunity to present explanations before both the first‑instance and appeal personnel committees, and there were no defects in the disciplinary procedure. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Email · Resignation Letter)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary quantum (in‑house assault), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Email · Resignation Letter)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to disciplinary quantum (in‑house assault) at “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Quantum (In‑House Assault).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary quantum (in‑house assault).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025Buhae9759 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.20 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) The parties’ assertions were in direct conflict as to the circumstances of the assault and as to which party was the victim or the assailant;
(2) There was an insufficient amount of objective evidence or witness statements supporting the employee’s assertions;
(3) Both parties suffered bodily injury.
In light of the foregoing, the conduct was recognized as in‑house violence constituting grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary quantum
The employer determined that the mutual assault had damaged organizational order and workplace discipline…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the company imposed a four‑month suspension from duty on an employee due to a mutual assault that occurred inside the company. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy, arguing that the suspension was an unfair disciplinary measure equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the disciplinary quantum, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ruled in favor of the employer. The case is an example in which the disciplinary principles repeatedly applied in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases were applied as they stand.
The employee argued that he was the victim and that the other party bore the greater responsibility for the assault. However, taking into account the limitations of the submitted evidence and statements, the Labor Relations Commission held that the in‑house violent conduct itself constituted grounds for discipline. Through this case, one can see how the disciplinary and unfair dismissal response principles accumulated by Labor Law Firm Law& are actually applied in practice.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was:
“In a situation involving mutual assault within the company, where it is unclear which party was the assailant and the evidence is insufficient, does a four‑month suspension from duty constitute an abuse of disciplinary authority to the extent of amounting to unfair dismissal?”
In addition, the following was also at issue:
“Is the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure established merely by the fact that first‑instance and second‑instance (appeal) personnel committees were convened, and how does the actual guarantee of the employee’s opportunity to present explanations affect the validity of the discipline?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held that, in light of (i) the fact that the parties’ assertions were in direct conflict as to the circumstances of the assault and as to which party was the victim or the assailant, (ii) the lack of sufficient objective evidence or witness statements supporting the employee’s unilateral assertions, and (iii) the fact that both parties suffered bodily injury, the in‑house violent conduct itself constituted grounds for discipline.
The panel further held that the disciplinary quantum did not amount to an abuse of discretion, taking into consideration: that the mutual assault had damaged organizational order and workplace discipline; that the employee had a prior record of personnel action for a similar incident; and that a four‑month suspension could not readily be viewed, under social norms, as grossly excessive.
In addition, the panel found the disciplinary procedure to be lawful, on the grounds that the employee had been given sufficient opportunity to present explanations before both the first‑instance and appeal personnel committees; that there was no indication that internal rules on disciplinary procedures had been violated; and that, although the burden of proof regarding compliance with disciplinary procedures generally lies with the employer, no circumstances indicating procedural violations were identified in this case.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, merely asserting “I am the victim” in an in‑house violence case is not sufficient. It is important to secure in advance objective materials supporting that assertion (such as medical certificates, CCTV footage, recordings, and written statements from surrounding witnesses). Where there is room for the incident to be evaluated as mutual assault, it is necessary to organize in detail the circumstances of the assault, whether there was a pre‑emptive attack, and the scope of defensive conduct, and to testify consistently to these points before the personnel committee.
When serious disciplinary measures such as suspension or pay reduction are imposed, it is advisable to consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline) only after comprehensively reviewing not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also whether the level of discipline is grossly excessive under social norms, taking into account prior disciplinary history, the nature of the duties, and consistency with similar cases within the company. In Labor Relations Commission proceedings, the key criterion is not whether “the discipline is somewhat heavy,” but whether it rises to the level of an abuse of discretion.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when an in‑house violence incident occurs, the company should not rely solely on one party’s statement. Rather, it should, to the extent possible, clarify whether the incident was mutual assault or one‑sided assault through investigations of all parties involved, interviews of witnesses, and the securing of objective evidence. On the premise that the burden of proof regarding the existence and degree of grounds for discipline lies with the employer, keeping records such as investigation reports, photographs, and CCTV captures will be of great assistance in responding before the Labor Relations Commission.
With respect to the disciplinary quantum, it is necessary to specify disciplinary standards for in‑house violence in the rules of employment and personnel regulations, and to determine the level of discipline in consideration of consistency with past similar cases. When operating personnel committees (first‑instance and appeal), employers should clearly secure procedural legitimacy by issuing attendance notices, providing opportunities to present explanations, and preparing minutes. Doing so will increase the likelihood of successfully defending against unfair dismissal and unfair discipline disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) The parties’ assertions were in direct conflict as to the circumstances of the assault and as to which party was the victim or the assailant;
(2) There was an insufficient amount of objective evidence or witness statements supporting the employee’s assertions;
(3) Both parties suffered bodily injury.
In light of the foregoing, the conduct was recognized as in‑house violence constituting grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary quantum
In light of the facts that the mutual assault damaged organizational order and workplace discipline, and that the employee had a prior record of personnel action for a similar incident, the four‑month suspension imposed on the employee could not readily be viewed, under social norms, as grossly excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
The disciplinary procedure was lawful because the employee had been given sufficient opportunity to present explanations before both the first‑instance and appeal personnel committees, and there were no defects in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) The parties’ assertions were in direct conflict as to the circumstances of the assault and as to which party was the victim or the assailant;
(2) There was an insufficient amount of objective evidence or witness statements supporting the employee’s assertions;
(3) Both parties suffered bodily injury.
In light of the foregoing, the conduct was recognized as in‑house violence constituting grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary quantum
In light of the facts that the mutual assault damaged organizational order and workplace discipline, and that the employee had a prior record of personnel action for a similar incident, the four‑month suspension imposed on the employee could not readily be viewed, under social norms, as grossly excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
The disciplinary procedure was lawful because the employee had been given sufficient opportunity to present explanations before both the first‑instance and appeal personnel committees, and there were no defects in the disciplinary procedure. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Email · Resignation Letter)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary quantum (in‑house assault), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Email · Resignation Letter)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to disciplinary quantum (in‑house assault) at “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Quantum (In‑House Assault).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
