Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Negligent Supervision (Long-Term Neglect of Subordinate’s Misconduct)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 257)
- Date2026/03/05 04:04
- Read 226
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “negligent supervision (long-term neglect of subordinate’s misconduct).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae967 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.16 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The acts of misconduct attributed to the employee are all recognized as grounds for discipline, in that, as a manager, the employee neglected his/her duty of management and supervision, failed to detect the subordinate’s misconduct at an early stage, allowed it to be repeated continuously and over a long period of time, and thereby bears responsibility for causing substantial damage to the employer in this case.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee working as a manager was dismissed for cause on the ground that he/she had long neglected a subordinate’s misconduct, resulting in substantial damage to the company, and then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. From the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&, this case can be seen as reaffirming the legal principles governing managerial responsibility and the determination of disciplinary sanctions.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where a manager has not personally committed any misconduct, but has failed to detect and prevent a subordinate’s misconduct at an early stage, thereby allowing it to be repeatedly committed over a long period and causing significant damage to the company, is dismissal for cause a justified disciplinary measure?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that, although the employee had a duty as a manager to manage and supervise subordinates, he/she neglected this duty and allowed the misconduct to be repeated multiple times and over a long period; that, as a result, the employer suffered substantial damage; and that the employer complied with the disciplinary procedures set out in the applicable rules of employment, personnel regulations, and disciplinary guidelines and afforded the employee an opportunity to explain.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that all of the acts of misconduct attributed to the employee constituted grounds for disciplinary action.
Taking into account the background leading to the discipline, the scope of persons subject to discipline, the basis for determining the level of discipline, the scale of the company’s loss, and the degree of the manager’s neglect of duty, the panel determined that, according to social norms, it would be difficult to continue the employment relationship.
Accordingly, the panel held that the level of discipline in the form of dismissal in this case was not excessive, that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures, and therefore the dismissal was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Managerial-level employees should be mindful that, even if they have not personally engaged in misconduct, “negligent supervision” in relation to a subordinate’s repeated and long-term misconduct can be recognized as grounds for dismissal for cause.
In particular, where the company has suffered financial loss or the scale of the loss is large, and there are indications that the manager failed to detect or prevent the misconduct despite its repeated occurrence, there is a high likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will find that, according to social norms, it is difficult to maintain the employment relationship.
If you seek a remedy for unfair dismissal in a similar situation, it is important to prepare evidence that can concretely demonstrate how you operated your management and supervision system in the ordinary course, what limitations existed between the standards required by the company and the level of supervision practically possible, and what measures you took after becoming aware of the misconduct.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, in order to justify dismissal for cause based on negligent supervision, it is necessary to clearly set out in the rules of employment, personnel regulations, and disciplinary guidelines the duties of managers and the grounds for discipline, and to establish in advance the standards for determining the level of discipline accordingly.
In addition, the employer must strictly comply with procedural requirements such as convening a disciplinary committee, giving specific notice of the grounds for discipline, and affording an opportunity to explain, and must document and retain materials regarding the content, duration, and frequency of the misconduct, the scale of the loss, and the manager’s position and role.
With respect to the determination of the level of discipline, in order to effectively respond before the Labor Relations Commission to any allegation of abuse of discretion, it is necessary to clearly record that the employer comprehensively considered, in accordance with the standards required by Supreme Court precedents, the manager’s position and job characteristics, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, the impact on corporate order, and the employee’s past work attitude.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The acts of misconduct attributed to the employee are all recognized as grounds for discipline, in that, as a manager, the employee neglected his/her duty of management and supervision, failed to detect the subordinate’s misconduct at an early stage, allowed it to be repeated continuously and over a long period of time, and thereby bears responsibility for causing substantial damage to the employer in this case.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the background leading to the discipline, the scope of persons subject to discipline, and the basis for determining the level of discipline, this is a case where the employee, by neglecting managerial duties, caused damage to the company to such an extent that the employment relationship cannot be continued, and therefore the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employer complied with the disciplinary procedures specified in the rules of employment, personnel regulations, and disciplinary guidelines and afforded the employee an opportunity to explain; therefore, the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures is recognized.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The acts of misconduct attributed to the employee are all recognized as grounds for discipline, in that, as a manager, the employee neglected his/her duty of management and supervision, failed to detect the subordinate’s misconduct at an early stage, allowed it to be repeated continuously and over a long period of time, and thereby bears responsibility for causing substantial damage to the employer in this case.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the background leading to the discipline, the scope of persons subject to discipline, and the basis for determining the level of discipline, this is a case where the employee, by neglecting managerial duties, caused damage to the company to such an extent that the employment relationship cannot be continued, and therefore the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employer complied with the disciplinary procedures specified in the rules of employment, personnel regulations, and disciplinary guidelines and afforded the employee an opportunity to explain; therefore, the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures is recognized. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissal
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Decision date: – Case number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, negligent supervision (long-term neglect of subordinate’s misconduct), dismissal for cause, violation of company policy · failure to comply with work orders, 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 Related to ‘Insufficient Proof (Sexual Harassment Dismissal for Cause)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to negligent supervision (long-term neglect of subordinate’s misconduct) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Negligent Supervision (Long-Term Neglect of Subordinate’s Misconduct).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “negligent supervision (long-term neglect of subordinate’s misconduct).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae967 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.16 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The acts of misconduct attributed to the employee are all recognized as grounds for discipline, in that, as a manager, the employee neglected his/her duty of management and supervision, failed to detect the subordinate’s misconduct at an early stage, allowed it to be repeated continuously and over a long period of time, and thereby bears responsibility for causing substantial damage to the employer in this case.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee working as a manager was dismissed for cause on the ground that he/she had long neglected a subordinate’s misconduct, resulting in substantial damage to the company, and then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. From the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&, this case can be seen as reaffirming the legal principles governing managerial responsibility and the determination of disciplinary sanctions.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where a manager has not personally committed any misconduct, but has failed to detect and prevent a subordinate’s misconduct at an early stage, thereby allowing it to be repeatedly committed over a long period and causing significant damage to the company, is dismissal for cause a justified disciplinary measure?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that, although the employee had a duty as a manager to manage and supervise subordinates, he/she neglected this duty and allowed the misconduct to be repeated multiple times and over a long period; that, as a result, the employer suffered substantial damage; and that the employer complied with the disciplinary procedures set out in the applicable rules of employment, personnel regulations, and disciplinary guidelines and afforded the employee an opportunity to explain.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that all of the acts of misconduct attributed to the employee constituted grounds for disciplinary action.
Taking into account the background leading to the discipline, the scope of persons subject to discipline, the basis for determining the level of discipline, the scale of the company’s loss, and the degree of the manager’s neglect of duty, the panel determined that, according to social norms, it would be difficult to continue the employment relationship.
Accordingly, the panel held that the level of discipline in the form of dismissal in this case was not excessive, that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures, and therefore the dismissal was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Managerial-level employees should be mindful that, even if they have not personally engaged in misconduct, “negligent supervision” in relation to a subordinate’s repeated and long-term misconduct can be recognized as grounds for dismissal for cause.
In particular, where the company has suffered financial loss or the scale of the loss is large, and there are indications that the manager failed to detect or prevent the misconduct despite its repeated occurrence, there is a high likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will find that, according to social norms, it is difficult to maintain the employment relationship.
If you seek a remedy for unfair dismissal in a similar situation, it is important to prepare evidence that can concretely demonstrate how you operated your management and supervision system in the ordinary course, what limitations existed between the standards required by the company and the level of supervision practically possible, and what measures you took after becoming aware of the misconduct.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, in order to justify dismissal for cause based on negligent supervision, it is necessary to clearly set out in the rules of employment, personnel regulations, and disciplinary guidelines the duties of managers and the grounds for discipline, and to establish in advance the standards for determining the level of discipline accordingly.
In addition, the employer must strictly comply with procedural requirements such as convening a disciplinary committee, giving specific notice of the grounds for discipline, and affording an opportunity to explain, and must document and retain materials regarding the content, duration, and frequency of the misconduct, the scale of the loss, and the manager’s position and role.
With respect to the determination of the level of discipline, in order to effectively respond before the Labor Relations Commission to any allegation of abuse of discretion, it is necessary to clearly record that the employer comprehensively considered, in accordance with the standards required by Supreme Court precedents, the manager’s position and job characteristics, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, the impact on corporate order, and the employee’s past work attitude.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The acts of misconduct attributed to the employee are all recognized as grounds for discipline, in that, as a manager, the employee neglected his/her duty of management and supervision, failed to detect the subordinate’s misconduct at an early stage, allowed it to be repeated continuously and over a long period of time, and thereby bears responsibility for causing substantial damage to the employer in this case.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the background leading to the discipline, the scope of persons subject to discipline, and the basis for determining the level of discipline, this is a case where the employee, by neglecting managerial duties, caused damage to the company to such an extent that the employment relationship cannot be continued, and therefore the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employer complied with the disciplinary procedures specified in the rules of employment, personnel regulations, and disciplinary guidelines and afforded the employee an opportunity to explain; therefore, the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures is recognized.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The acts of misconduct attributed to the employee are all recognized as grounds for discipline, in that, as a manager, the employee neglected his/her duty of management and supervision, failed to detect the subordinate’s misconduct at an early stage, allowed it to be repeated continuously and over a long period of time, and thereby bears responsibility for causing substantial damage to the employer in this case.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the background leading to the discipline, the scope of persons subject to discipline, and the basis for determining the level of discipline, this is a case where the employee, by neglecting managerial duties, caused damage to the company to such an extent that the employment relationship cannot be continued, and therefore the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employer complied with the disciplinary procedures specified in the rules of employment, personnel regulations, and disciplinary guidelines and afforded the employee an opportunity to explain; therefore, the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures is recognized. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissal
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Decision date: – Case number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, negligent supervision (long-term neglect of subordinate’s misconduct), dismissal for cause, violation of company policy · failure to comply with work orders, 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 Related to ‘Insufficient Proof (Sexual Harassment Dismissal for Cause)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to negligent supervision (long-term neglect of subordinate’s misconduct) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Negligent Supervision (Long-Term Neglect of Subordinate’s Misconduct).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
