Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expiry of Disciplinary Limitation Period (Misconduct During Industrial Action)” (Unfair Dismissal 271)
- Date2026/03/09 04:13
- Read 206
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that concluded with a partial reversal of the first-instance decision on the issue of “expiry of the disciplinary limitation period (misconduct during industrial action).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1500 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.14 · Case outcome: First-instance decision partially reversed
Summary of key issues:
A. Legality of the procedure
Under Article 32 of the collective agreement, disciplinary measures of pay reduction or heavier must be decided within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds. However, the disciplinary committee for Employee 1 was convened after this deadline, so the procedural defect is clear, whereas there is no procedural defect in the disciplinary measures imposed on Employees 2 through 10.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, several union members were subjected to disciplinary measures for misconduct that occurred in the course of industrial action, and the legality of those measures was contested before the Labor Relations Commission. The Central Labor Relations Commission focused its decision on: (i) the disciplinary limitation period under the collective agreement (convening the disciplinary committee within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds), (ii) whether misconduct during industrial action can be subject to discipline, and (iii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline imposed.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are: “Whether discipline based on a disciplinary committee convened after the expiry of the disciplinary limitation period set out in the collective agreement is valid; whether misconduct occurring during industrial action can be subject to discipline; and whether disciplinary measures at the level of warning or reprimand are manifestly unreasonable by social standards.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that, under Article 32 of the collective agreement, disciplinary measures of pay reduction or heavier must be decided by convening a disciplinary committee within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds, yet the disciplinary committee for Employee 1 was convened after that deadline; that the rule on the disciplinary limitation period is intended to prevent instability in the employee’s status and that a violation of the procedure renders the discipline itself null and void; and that, by contrast, there was no violation of the disciplinary limitation period with respect to Employees 2 through 10 and the disciplinary procedures for them were conducted in accordance with the rules.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the disciplinary measure against Employee 1 was clearly procedurally defective and therefore invalid without any need to further examine the merits.
In addition, the Commission found that, in prior instances of industrial action before this case, there had been no misconduct of the kind at issue here; that it was difficult to regard the company as having formed a practice or agreement that it would “not discipline industrial action in general”; that the grounds for discipline related to industrial action could not be interpreted as necessarily requiring actual damage to the company; and that, even though the misconduct occurred during a period of lawful industrial action, the acts committed by Employees 2 through 10 constituted misconduct falling outside the scope of legitimate trade union activities. On this basis, the Commission held that grounds for discipline were established for these employees.
Furthermore, the Commission noted that Employees 2 through 10 were only given relatively light disciplinary measures—warnings or reprimands—under the disciplinary grading table; that, compared with the company’s prior similar cases, there was no significant imbalance in terms of fairness; and that, under the case law, the legitimacy of the level of discipline is denied only where it is manifestly unreasonable by social standards. In light of this, the Commission held that the disciplinary measures in this case did not exceed the employer’s discretionary authority and that the level of discipline was appropriate.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to recognize that rules on the disciplinary limitation period and disciplinary procedures are not mere formalities but core requirements that determine the validity of disciplinary measures. In particular, where the collective agreement or work rules specify deadlines for convening the disciplinary committee or procedures for appeal/review, employees should carefully check whether the employer has complied with them and actively consider filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission for remedy for unfair dismissal or unfair discipline if there has been a procedural violation.
Employees should also bear in mind that, even during lawful industrial action, acts such as violence or serious obstruction of business may be evaluated as misconduct falling outside the scope of legitimate union activities and may therefore constitute grounds for discipline. It is important, even in the course of union activities, to ensure that one’s conduct does not exceed the scope permitted by the collective agreement, work rules, and applicable laws.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, even where the grounds for discipline are clear, failure to strictly comply with the disciplinary limitation period and disciplinary committee procedures set out in the collective agreement or work rules may render the entire disciplinary measure null and void solely due to procedural defects, as in the case of Employee 1. The company should clearly record the time at which it becomes aware of the grounds for discipline and establish internal processes to manage the periods between the date of occurrence of the grounds, the date of awareness, and the date of the disciplinary committee meeting.
In addition, in relation to discipline arising from industrial action, the company should systematically manage past cases to prepare for arguments such as “no discipline was imposed in the past,” and explicitly stipulate in the collective agreement or labor-management agreements whether personnel liability related to industrial action is to be exempted, as this will help prevent disputes. With respect to the level of discipline, the company should maintain consistency and fairness with similar cases in accordance with the disciplinary grading table and, in advance, refine its standards and precedents for operation so that the measures are not evaluated as excessive by social standards.
This decision reaffirms the legal principles on procedural fairness in unfair dismissal/discipline cases, the evaluation of misconduct during industrial action, and the scope of discretion in determining the level of discipline. It is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& in order to identify and manage risks in advance.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legality of the procedure
Under Article 32 of the collective agreement, disciplinary measures of pay reduction or heavier must be decided within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds. However, the disciplinary committee for Employee 1 was convened after this deadline, so the procedural defect is clear, whereas there is no procedural defect in the disciplinary measures imposed on Employees 2 through 10.
B. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) As the disciplinary measure against Employee 1 is clearly procedurally defective, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues.
(2) As for Employees 2 through 10, there had been no incidents of misconduct like that at issue in this case in prior instances of industrial action, so it is difficult to regard the absence of disciplinary measures for industrial action as having formed a kind of practice; these grounds for discipline cannot be interpreted as necessarily requiring the occurrence of damage to the company; and, although the misconduct occurred during a period of lawful industrial action, the misconduct committed by Employees 2 through 10 can hardly be regarded as part of legitimate trade union activities. Accordingly, it constitutes grounds for discipline.
C. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
All of the misconduct committed by Employees 2 through 10 is recognized; under the disciplinary grading table, they were given relatively very light disciplinary measures such as warnings or reprimands; and, in light of the company’s similar past disciplinary cases, it is difficult to regard the disciplinary measures as having lost their legitimacy to a manifestly unreasonable extent by social standards so as to be unlawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Legality of the procedure
Under Article 32 of the collective agreement, disciplinary measures of pay reduction or heavier must be decided within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds. However, the disciplinary committee for Employee 1 was convened after this deadline, so the procedural defect is clear, whereas there is no procedural defect in the disciplinary measures imposed on Employees 2 through 10.
B. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) As the disciplinary measure against Employee 1 is clearly procedurally defective, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues.
(2) As for Employees 2 through 10, there had been no incidents of misconduct like that at issue in this case in prior instances of industrial action, so it is difficult to regard the absence of disciplinary measures for industrial action as having formed a kind of practice; these grounds for discipline cannot be interpreted as necessarily requiring the occurrence of damage to the company; and, although the misconduct occurred during a period of lawful industrial action, the misconduct committed by Employees 2 through 10 can hardly be regarded as part of legitimate trade union activities. Accordingly, it constitutes grounds for discipline.
C. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
All of the misconduct committed by Employees 2 through 10 is recognized; under the disciplinary grading table, they were given relatively very light disciplinary measures such as warnings or reprimands; and, in light of the company’s similar past disciplinary cases, it is difficult to regard the disciplinary measures as having lost their legitimacy to a manifestly unreasonable extent by social standards so as to be unlawful. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Formation of Employment Offer (Notification by Recruitment Agency)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expiry of disciplinary limitation period (misconduct during industrial action), disciplinary dismissal, 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 on ‘Exclusion Period (Date of Notification of Personnel Order)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to expiry of disciplinary limitation period (misconduct during industrial action) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Expiry of Disciplinary Limitation Period (Misconduct During Industrial Action).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that concluded with a partial reversal of the first-instance decision on the issue of “expiry of the disciplinary limitation period (misconduct during industrial action).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1500 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.14 · Case outcome: First-instance decision partially reversed
Summary of key issues:
A. Legality of the procedure
Under Article 32 of the collective agreement, disciplinary measures of pay reduction or heavier must be decided within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds. However, the disciplinary committee for Employee 1 was convened after this deadline, so the procedural defect is clear, whereas there is no procedural defect in the disciplinary measures imposed on Employees 2 through 10.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, several union members were subjected to disciplinary measures for misconduct that occurred in the course of industrial action, and the legality of those measures was contested before the Labor Relations Commission. The Central Labor Relations Commission focused its decision on: (i) the disciplinary limitation period under the collective agreement (convening the disciplinary committee within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds), (ii) whether misconduct during industrial action can be subject to discipline, and (iii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline imposed.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are: “Whether discipline based on a disciplinary committee convened after the expiry of the disciplinary limitation period set out in the collective agreement is valid; whether misconduct occurring during industrial action can be subject to discipline; and whether disciplinary measures at the level of warning or reprimand are manifestly unreasonable by social standards.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that, under Article 32 of the collective agreement, disciplinary measures of pay reduction or heavier must be decided by convening a disciplinary committee within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds, yet the disciplinary committee for Employee 1 was convened after that deadline; that the rule on the disciplinary limitation period is intended to prevent instability in the employee’s status and that a violation of the procedure renders the discipline itself null and void; and that, by contrast, there was no violation of the disciplinary limitation period with respect to Employees 2 through 10 and the disciplinary procedures for them were conducted in accordance with the rules.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the disciplinary measure against Employee 1 was clearly procedurally defective and therefore invalid without any need to further examine the merits.
In addition, the Commission found that, in prior instances of industrial action before this case, there had been no misconduct of the kind at issue here; that it was difficult to regard the company as having formed a practice or agreement that it would “not discipline industrial action in general”; that the grounds for discipline related to industrial action could not be interpreted as necessarily requiring actual damage to the company; and that, even though the misconduct occurred during a period of lawful industrial action, the acts committed by Employees 2 through 10 constituted misconduct falling outside the scope of legitimate trade union activities. On this basis, the Commission held that grounds for discipline were established for these employees.
Furthermore, the Commission noted that Employees 2 through 10 were only given relatively light disciplinary measures—warnings or reprimands—under the disciplinary grading table; that, compared with the company’s prior similar cases, there was no significant imbalance in terms of fairness; and that, under the case law, the legitimacy of the level of discipline is denied only where it is manifestly unreasonable by social standards. In light of this, the Commission held that the disciplinary measures in this case did not exceed the employer’s discretionary authority and that the level of discipline was appropriate.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to recognize that rules on the disciplinary limitation period and disciplinary procedures are not mere formalities but core requirements that determine the validity of disciplinary measures. In particular, where the collective agreement or work rules specify deadlines for convening the disciplinary committee or procedures for appeal/review, employees should carefully check whether the employer has complied with them and actively consider filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission for remedy for unfair dismissal or unfair discipline if there has been a procedural violation.
Employees should also bear in mind that, even during lawful industrial action, acts such as violence or serious obstruction of business may be evaluated as misconduct falling outside the scope of legitimate union activities and may therefore constitute grounds for discipline. It is important, even in the course of union activities, to ensure that one’s conduct does not exceed the scope permitted by the collective agreement, work rules, and applicable laws.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, even where the grounds for discipline are clear, failure to strictly comply with the disciplinary limitation period and disciplinary committee procedures set out in the collective agreement or work rules may render the entire disciplinary measure null and void solely due to procedural defects, as in the case of Employee 1. The company should clearly record the time at which it becomes aware of the grounds for discipline and establish internal processes to manage the periods between the date of occurrence of the grounds, the date of awareness, and the date of the disciplinary committee meeting.
In addition, in relation to discipline arising from industrial action, the company should systematically manage past cases to prepare for arguments such as “no discipline was imposed in the past,” and explicitly stipulate in the collective agreement or labor-management agreements whether personnel liability related to industrial action is to be exempted, as this will help prevent disputes. With respect to the level of discipline, the company should maintain consistency and fairness with similar cases in accordance with the disciplinary grading table and, in advance, refine its standards and precedents for operation so that the measures are not evaluated as excessive by social standards.
This decision reaffirms the legal principles on procedural fairness in unfair dismissal/discipline cases, the evaluation of misconduct during industrial action, and the scope of discretion in determining the level of discipline. It is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& in order to identify and manage risks in advance.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legality of the procedure
Under Article 32 of the collective agreement, disciplinary measures of pay reduction or heavier must be decided within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds. However, the disciplinary committee for Employee 1 was convened after this deadline, so the procedural defect is clear, whereas there is no procedural defect in the disciplinary measures imposed on Employees 2 through 10.
B. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) As the disciplinary measure against Employee 1 is clearly procedurally defective, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues.
(2) As for Employees 2 through 10, there had been no incidents of misconduct like that at issue in this case in prior instances of industrial action, so it is difficult to regard the absence of disciplinary measures for industrial action as having formed a kind of practice; these grounds for discipline cannot be interpreted as necessarily requiring the occurrence of damage to the company; and, although the misconduct occurred during a period of lawful industrial action, the misconduct committed by Employees 2 through 10 can hardly be regarded as part of legitimate trade union activities. Accordingly, it constitutes grounds for discipline.
C. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
All of the misconduct committed by Employees 2 through 10 is recognized; under the disciplinary grading table, they were given relatively very light disciplinary measures such as warnings or reprimands; and, in light of the company’s similar past disciplinary cases, it is difficult to regard the disciplinary measures as having lost their legitimacy to a manifestly unreasonable extent by social standards so as to be unlawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Legality of the procedure
Under Article 32 of the collective agreement, disciplinary measures of pay reduction or heavier must be decided within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds. However, the disciplinary committee for Employee 1 was convened after this deadline, so the procedural defect is clear, whereas there is no procedural defect in the disciplinary measures imposed on Employees 2 through 10.
B. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) As the disciplinary measure against Employee 1 is clearly procedurally defective, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues.
(2) As for Employees 2 through 10, there had been no incidents of misconduct like that at issue in this case in prior instances of industrial action, so it is difficult to regard the absence of disciplinary measures for industrial action as having formed a kind of practice; these grounds for discipline cannot be interpreted as necessarily requiring the occurrence of damage to the company; and, although the misconduct occurred during a period of lawful industrial action, the misconduct committed by Employees 2 through 10 can hardly be regarded as part of legitimate trade union activities. Accordingly, it constitutes grounds for discipline.
C. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
All of the misconduct committed by Employees 2 through 10 is recognized; under the disciplinary grading table, they were given relatively very light disciplinary measures such as warnings or reprimands; and, in light of the company’s similar past disciplinary cases, it is difficult to regard the disciplinary measures as having lost their legitimacy to a manifestly unreasonable extent by social standards so as to be unlawful. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Formation of Employment Offer (Notification by Recruitment Agency)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expiry of disciplinary limitation period (misconduct during industrial action), disciplinary dismissal, 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 on ‘Exclusion Period (Date of Notification of Personnel Order)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to expiry of disciplinary limitation period (misconduct during industrial action) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Expiry of Disciplinary Limitation Period (Misconduct During Industrial Action).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
