Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Golf Entertainment · Interior Cost Payment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 263)
- Date2026/03/07 04:04
- Read 225
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee partially prevailed on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (golf entertainment · interior cost payment).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9147 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.15 · Outcome: Partially upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
All of the following alleged misconduct by the employee—“receiving golf entertainment and other hospitality from a subcontractor (Ground 1),” “undermining the fairness of competitive bidding by placing advance orders and violating bidding procedures prior to formal contract execution (Ground 2),” and “having a subcontractor with a conflicting interest pay for home interior costs, thereby misappropriating amounts (Ground 3)”—constituted violations of Articles 5, 23, and 33 of the Rules of Employment and therefore amounted to just cause for discipline...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal against a disciplinary dismissal imposed for misconduct including receiving golf entertainment from a subcontractor, violating bidding procedures, and having a subcontractor pay for home interior costs.
The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, but focused its examination on whether the level of discipline (dismissal) was excessively severe so as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary discretion, ultimately issuing a partially favorable decision for the employee. During the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings, the Commission examined the elements for determining the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal in a step-by-step manner.
The key issue in this case is:
“In a situation where serious misconduct such as receiving golf entertainment from a subcontractor, violating bidding procedures, and having interior costs paid by a subcontractor is acknowledged, whether the highest level of sanction—disciplinary dismissal—is justified; in other words, whether the severity of the discipline is markedly excessive by social standards.”
The panel in this case held that the employee’s misconduct constituted a violation of the Rules of Employment and thus that grounds for discipline themselves were established, and that the employer complied with the procedures under the Rules of Employment, such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity for explanation. Nevertheless, given that other employees who participated in the same or similar seminar events that included golf schedules received only suspension, and that it was difficult to view the golf entertainment as an act unilaterally decided by the employee,
the panel determined that the dismissal in this case was unfair, as the severity of the discipline was excessive compared to the grounds for discipline and thus amounted to an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether, even when multiple acts of misconduct—receiving hospitality from a subcontractor, violating bidding procedures, and having interior costs paid by a subcontractor—are all acknowledged, it can still be said, by social standards, that the employment relationship cannot be continued to the extent that disciplinary dismissal is warranted, and whether, in light of consistency with the treatment of other employees, the level of discipline constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission relied on the following grounds:
First, the employee’s acts of misconduct constituted conduct prohibited under the Rules of Employment, and therefore just cause for discipline existed.
Second, the disciplinary procedures, including convening a disciplinary committee as prescribed in the Rules of Employment and providing an opportunity for explanation and clarification, were lawfully conducted.
Third, notwithstanding the above, it was difficult to view the golf entertainment as a decision made solely at the employee’s own discretion, and the consistency of discipline was undermined in that other employees who participated in the same event received suspension as their disciplinary measure.
Taking these circumstances together, the Commission found that the disciplinary dismissal was an excessively severe sanction that, by social standards, clearly lost its reasonableness, and therefore constituted an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority, amounting to unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that even if some misconduct is acknowledged, this does not automatically preclude the possibility of obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal. The existence of grounds for discipline, the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and the appropriateness of the level of discipline are assessed separately. Accordingly, it is particularly important to organize materials showing what disciplinary measures were imposed on other employees in similar cases, and to what extent your own conduct involved unilateral decision-making or leadership.
In filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, you should not limit your arguments to “denial of the facts.” Even if a violation of the Rules of Employment is acknowledged, you should specifically assert and prove that dismissal is excessive, and that the intended purpose could have been sufficiently achieved through other sanctions (such as suspension or pay reduction).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it must be clearly recognized that even where the grounds for discipline are serious and the disciplinary procedures have been properly followed, the dismissal may still be found to be unfair if the level of discipline is excessive.
In particular, it is necessary to prepare systematic standards for determining disciplinary severity that organize, for example, what levels of discipline have been applied in the past for similar misconduct, the nature of the job, the degree of misconduct, and the impact on corporate order, and to apply those standards consistently in actual cases. In addition, if there have been customary practices involving conflicts of interest, such as entertainment by subcontractors or payment of costs on behalf of employees, it will help prevent disputes to rectify such practices and provide prior training to clearly notify employees of the standards, and to take into account both past practices and the company’s management responsibility when imposing discipline.
This decision once again confirms that even where both the grounds for discipline and the procedures are acknowledged, the Labor Relations Commission may still find unfair dismissal if the level of discipline is markedly excessive by social standards. If you are concerned about similar situations, you should consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review the level and fairness of the proposed disciplinary measures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
All of the following alleged misconduct by the employee—“receiving golf entertainment and other hospitality from a subcontractor (Ground 1),” “undermining the fairness of competitive bidding by placing advance orders and violating bidding procedures prior to formal contract execution (Ground 2),” and “having a subcontractor with a conflicting interest pay for home interior costs, thereby misappropriating amounts (Ground 3)”—constituted violations of Articles 5, 23, and 33 of the Rules of Employment and therefore amounted to just cause for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although the employee’s work-related negligence is acknowledged, it is difficult to view the conduct relating to “Ground 1” as an act unilaterally decided by the employee. When compared with the fact that, in the case of other employees who participated in seminar events that included golf schedules, the employer imposed suspension as the level of discipline, the measure in this case does not conform to the principle of consistency in discipline. The level of the sanction is therefore excessive, and it is determined that the employer abused the discretionary authority granted as the disciplinary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employer fully provided the opportunities prescribed in Article 80 (Decision on Discipline) and Article 81 (Opportunity for Explanation) of the Rules of Employment, and no other circumstances were identified that could be regarded as defects in the disciplinary procedures. Accordingly, there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
All of the following alleged misconduct by the employee—“receiving golf entertainment and other hospitality from a subcontractor (Ground 1),” “undermining the fairness of competitive bidding by placing advance orders and violating bidding procedures prior to formal contract execution (Ground 2),” and “having a subcontractor with a conflicting interest pay for home interior costs, thereby misappropriating amounts (Ground 3)”—constituted violations of Articles 5, 23, and 33 of the Rules of Employment and therefore amounted to just cause for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although the employee’s work-related negligence is acknowledged, it is difficult to view the conduct relating to “Ground 1” as an act unilaterally decided by the employee. When compared with the fact that, in the case of other employees who participated in seminar events that included golf schedules, the employer imposed suspension as the level of discipline, the measure in this case does not conform to the principle of consistency in discipline. The level of the sanction is therefore excessive, and it is determined that the employer abused the discretionary authority granted as the disciplinary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employer fully provided the opportunities prescribed in Article 80 (Decision on Discipline) and Article 81 (Opportunity for Explanation) of the Rules of Employment, and no other circumstances were identified that could be regarded as defects in the disciplinary procedures. Accordingly, there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (golf entertainment · interior cost payment), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Bullying · Property Damage)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (golf entertainment · interior cost payment) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Golf Entertainment · Interior Cost Payment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee partially prevailed on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (golf entertainment · interior cost payment).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9147 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.15 · Outcome: Partially upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
All of the following alleged misconduct by the employee—“receiving golf entertainment and other hospitality from a subcontractor (Ground 1),” “undermining the fairness of competitive bidding by placing advance orders and violating bidding procedures prior to formal contract execution (Ground 2),” and “having a subcontractor with a conflicting interest pay for home interior costs, thereby misappropriating amounts (Ground 3)”—constituted violations of Articles 5, 23, and 33 of the Rules of Employment and therefore amounted to just cause for discipline...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal against a disciplinary dismissal imposed for misconduct including receiving golf entertainment from a subcontractor, violating bidding procedures, and having a subcontractor pay for home interior costs.
The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, but focused its examination on whether the level of discipline (dismissal) was excessively severe so as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary discretion, ultimately issuing a partially favorable decision for the employee. During the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings, the Commission examined the elements for determining the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal in a step-by-step manner.
The key issue in this case is:
“In a situation where serious misconduct such as receiving golf entertainment from a subcontractor, violating bidding procedures, and having interior costs paid by a subcontractor is acknowledged, whether the highest level of sanction—disciplinary dismissal—is justified; in other words, whether the severity of the discipline is markedly excessive by social standards.”
The panel in this case held that the employee’s misconduct constituted a violation of the Rules of Employment and thus that grounds for discipline themselves were established, and that the employer complied with the procedures under the Rules of Employment, such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity for explanation. Nevertheless, given that other employees who participated in the same or similar seminar events that included golf schedules received only suspension, and that it was difficult to view the golf entertainment as an act unilaterally decided by the employee,
the panel determined that the dismissal in this case was unfair, as the severity of the discipline was excessive compared to the grounds for discipline and thus amounted to an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether, even when multiple acts of misconduct—receiving hospitality from a subcontractor, violating bidding procedures, and having interior costs paid by a subcontractor—are all acknowledged, it can still be said, by social standards, that the employment relationship cannot be continued to the extent that disciplinary dismissal is warranted, and whether, in light of consistency with the treatment of other employees, the level of discipline constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission relied on the following grounds:
First, the employee’s acts of misconduct constituted conduct prohibited under the Rules of Employment, and therefore just cause for discipline existed.
Second, the disciplinary procedures, including convening a disciplinary committee as prescribed in the Rules of Employment and providing an opportunity for explanation and clarification, were lawfully conducted.
Third, notwithstanding the above, it was difficult to view the golf entertainment as a decision made solely at the employee’s own discretion, and the consistency of discipline was undermined in that other employees who participated in the same event received suspension as their disciplinary measure.
Taking these circumstances together, the Commission found that the disciplinary dismissal was an excessively severe sanction that, by social standards, clearly lost its reasonableness, and therefore constituted an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority, amounting to unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that even if some misconduct is acknowledged, this does not automatically preclude the possibility of obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal. The existence of grounds for discipline, the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and the appropriateness of the level of discipline are assessed separately. Accordingly, it is particularly important to organize materials showing what disciplinary measures were imposed on other employees in similar cases, and to what extent your own conduct involved unilateral decision-making or leadership.
In filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, you should not limit your arguments to “denial of the facts.” Even if a violation of the Rules of Employment is acknowledged, you should specifically assert and prove that dismissal is excessive, and that the intended purpose could have been sufficiently achieved through other sanctions (such as suspension or pay reduction).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it must be clearly recognized that even where the grounds for discipline are serious and the disciplinary procedures have been properly followed, the dismissal may still be found to be unfair if the level of discipline is excessive.
In particular, it is necessary to prepare systematic standards for determining disciplinary severity that organize, for example, what levels of discipline have been applied in the past for similar misconduct, the nature of the job, the degree of misconduct, and the impact on corporate order, and to apply those standards consistently in actual cases. In addition, if there have been customary practices involving conflicts of interest, such as entertainment by subcontractors or payment of costs on behalf of employees, it will help prevent disputes to rectify such practices and provide prior training to clearly notify employees of the standards, and to take into account both past practices and the company’s management responsibility when imposing discipline.
This decision once again confirms that even where both the grounds for discipline and the procedures are acknowledged, the Labor Relations Commission may still find unfair dismissal if the level of discipline is markedly excessive by social standards. If you are concerned about similar situations, you should consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review the level and fairness of the proposed disciplinary measures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
All of the following alleged misconduct by the employee—“receiving golf entertainment and other hospitality from a subcontractor (Ground 1),” “undermining the fairness of competitive bidding by placing advance orders and violating bidding procedures prior to formal contract execution (Ground 2),” and “having a subcontractor with a conflicting interest pay for home interior costs, thereby misappropriating amounts (Ground 3)”—constituted violations of Articles 5, 23, and 33 of the Rules of Employment and therefore amounted to just cause for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although the employee’s work-related negligence is acknowledged, it is difficult to view the conduct relating to “Ground 1” as an act unilaterally decided by the employee. When compared with the fact that, in the case of other employees who participated in seminar events that included golf schedules, the employer imposed suspension as the level of discipline, the measure in this case does not conform to the principle of consistency in discipline. The level of the sanction is therefore excessive, and it is determined that the employer abused the discretionary authority granted as the disciplinary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employer fully provided the opportunities prescribed in Article 80 (Decision on Discipline) and Article 81 (Opportunity for Explanation) of the Rules of Employment, and no other circumstances were identified that could be regarded as defects in the disciplinary procedures. Accordingly, there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
All of the following alleged misconduct by the employee—“receiving golf entertainment and other hospitality from a subcontractor (Ground 1),” “undermining the fairness of competitive bidding by placing advance orders and violating bidding procedures prior to formal contract execution (Ground 2),” and “having a subcontractor with a conflicting interest pay for home interior costs, thereby misappropriating amounts (Ground 3)”—constituted violations of Articles 5, 23, and 33 of the Rules of Employment and therefore amounted to just cause for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Although the employee’s work-related negligence is acknowledged, it is difficult to view the conduct relating to “Ground 1” as an act unilaterally decided by the employee. When compared with the fact that, in the case of other employees who participated in seminar events that included golf schedules, the employer imposed suspension as the level of discipline, the measure in this case does not conform to the principle of consistency in discipline. The level of the sanction is therefore excessive, and it is determined that the employer abused the discretionary authority granted as the disciplinary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employer fully provided the opportunities prescribed in Article 80 (Decision on Discipline) and Article 81 (Opportunity for Explanation) of the Rules of Employment, and no other circumstances were identified that could be regarded as defects in the disciplinary procedures. Accordingly, there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (golf entertainment · interior cost payment), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Bullying · Property Damage)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (golf entertainment · interior cost payment) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Golf Entertainment · Interior Cost Payment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
