Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (One Day of Unauthorised Absence)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 281)
- Date2026/03/14 04:04
- Read 242
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (one day of unauthorised absence).”
Adjudicating Body: Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025부해9025 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.13 · Outcome: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted)
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was found that the employee had been absent without leave for one day, and thus poor attendance was acknowledged.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was subjected to disciplinary dismissal on the grounds of unauthorised absence and assault on the representative director. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and the matter was contested before the Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission examined which of the employer’s alleged grounds for discipline were substantiated, and whether, based on only those substantiated grounds, dismissal—the most severe form of discipline—was justified.
The key issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where only limited grounds for discipline, such as one day of unauthorised absence, are recognised, is the imposition of dismissal, the most severe sanction under the disciplinary scale, justified?”
The panel in this case noted that the employee had in fact been absent without leave for one day, so that poor attendance itself was established; however, the alleged assault on the representative director was not sufficiently proven and therefore could not be regarded as a ground for discipline. As a result, the grounds for discipline actually recognised were limited to “poor attendance.”
The panel held that, in light of these circumstances, the dismissal in this case constituted a situation where, compared to the seriousness of the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline had clearly lost its reasonableness by social standards, and therefore amounted to an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority and an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where the serious misconduct alleged—assault on the representative director—is not proven, and only poor attendance such as one day of unauthorised absence is recognised, does the employer’s choice of dismissal, the most severe measure under the disciplinary scale, fall within the socially acceptable bounds of disciplinary discretion?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
First, the Labor Relations Commission found that the employee’s one day of unauthorised absence was established, and therefore that there existed a ground for discipline in the form of poor attendance. Second, it held that the employer’s allegation of assault on the representative director was not supported by sufficient proof as to the circumstances and facts, and therefore could not be recognised as a ground for discipline. Third, in a situation where the recognised grounds for discipline were limited to the relatively minor misconduct of “poor attendance,” the choice of dismissal, the most severe sanction under the disciplinary scale, was found to be a sanction that was clearly excessive by social standards, having lost the balance between the grounds for discipline and the measure imposed, and thus constituted a deviation and abuse of disciplinary discretion.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is crucial in unfair dismissal disputes to focus on whether all of the employer’s alleged grounds for discipline are actually proven. In particular, if serious allegations such as assault or embezzlement are factually incorrect or insufficiently substantiated, those allegations should be actively contested, and the lawfulness of the dismissal should be assessed solely on the basis of the grounds actually recognised. In addition, since attendance issues such as unauthorised absence can constitute grounds for discipline, if there is a legitimate reason, the employee should, as far as possible, report and explain it immediately in advance or without delay and ensure that a record is kept.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it must be clearly understood that, when imposing disciplinary measures including disciplinary dismissal, not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the appropriateness of the “severity” of the sanction is independently reviewed. If, in circumstances where only relatively minor poor attendance such as one day of unauthorised absence is proven, the employer immediately opts for dismissal, there is a high risk that, even if this is in accordance with the disciplinary scale in the rules of employment, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will find an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, employers should comprehensively consider the nature, frequency, and circumstances of the misconduct, the employee’s past work attitude, and the characteristics of the position, and first review stepwise sanctions such as reprimand, wage reduction, or suspension from duty. Dismissal should be exercised only as a last resort in cases so serious that, by social standards, the employment relationship cannot reasonably be maintained.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was found that the employee had been absent without leave for one day, and thus the fact of poor attendance was recognised. However, the alleged assault on the representative director was not sufficiently proven and therefore could not be regarded as a ground for discipline. Accordingly, only the aspect of poor attendance was recognised as a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Imposing dismissal, the most severe sanction under the disciplinary scale, solely on the basis of the ground of poor attendance constituted a sanction that, by social standards, had clearly lost its reasonableness and therefore amounted to an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was found that the employee had been absent without leave for one day, and thus the fact of poor attendance was recognised. However, the alleged assault on the representative director was not sufficiently proven and therefore could not be regarded as a ground for discipline. Accordingly, only the aspect of poor attendance was recognised as a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Imposing dismissal, the most severe sanction under the disciplinary scale, solely on the basis of the ground of poor attendance constituted a sanction that, by social standards, had clearly lost its reasonableness and therefore amounted to an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - · Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (one day of unauthorised absence), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorised absence, 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, “‘Benefit of Remedy for Release from Position (Misconduct Reported in the Media)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (one day of unauthorised absence) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Severity (One Day of Unauthorised Absence).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (one day of unauthorised absence).”
Adjudicating Body: Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025부해9025 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.13 · Outcome: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted)
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was found that the employee had been absent without leave for one day, and thus poor attendance was acknowledged.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was subjected to disciplinary dismissal on the grounds of unauthorised absence and assault on the representative director. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and the matter was contested before the Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission examined which of the employer’s alleged grounds for discipline were substantiated, and whether, based on only those substantiated grounds, dismissal—the most severe form of discipline—was justified.
The key issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where only limited grounds for discipline, such as one day of unauthorised absence, are recognised, is the imposition of dismissal, the most severe sanction under the disciplinary scale, justified?”
The panel in this case noted that the employee had in fact been absent without leave for one day, so that poor attendance itself was established; however, the alleged assault on the representative director was not sufficiently proven and therefore could not be regarded as a ground for discipline. As a result, the grounds for discipline actually recognised were limited to “poor attendance.”
The panel held that, in light of these circumstances, the dismissal in this case constituted a situation where, compared to the seriousness of the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline had clearly lost its reasonableness by social standards, and therefore amounted to an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority and an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where the serious misconduct alleged—assault on the representative director—is not proven, and only poor attendance such as one day of unauthorised absence is recognised, does the employer’s choice of dismissal, the most severe measure under the disciplinary scale, fall within the socially acceptable bounds of disciplinary discretion?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
First, the Labor Relations Commission found that the employee’s one day of unauthorised absence was established, and therefore that there existed a ground for discipline in the form of poor attendance. Second, it held that the employer’s allegation of assault on the representative director was not supported by sufficient proof as to the circumstances and facts, and therefore could not be recognised as a ground for discipline. Third, in a situation where the recognised grounds for discipline were limited to the relatively minor misconduct of “poor attendance,” the choice of dismissal, the most severe sanction under the disciplinary scale, was found to be a sanction that was clearly excessive by social standards, having lost the balance between the grounds for discipline and the measure imposed, and thus constituted a deviation and abuse of disciplinary discretion.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is crucial in unfair dismissal disputes to focus on whether all of the employer’s alleged grounds for discipline are actually proven. In particular, if serious allegations such as assault or embezzlement are factually incorrect or insufficiently substantiated, those allegations should be actively contested, and the lawfulness of the dismissal should be assessed solely on the basis of the grounds actually recognised. In addition, since attendance issues such as unauthorised absence can constitute grounds for discipline, if there is a legitimate reason, the employee should, as far as possible, report and explain it immediately in advance or without delay and ensure that a record is kept.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it must be clearly understood that, when imposing disciplinary measures including disciplinary dismissal, not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the appropriateness of the “severity” of the sanction is independently reviewed. If, in circumstances where only relatively minor poor attendance such as one day of unauthorised absence is proven, the employer immediately opts for dismissal, there is a high risk that, even if this is in accordance with the disciplinary scale in the rules of employment, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will find an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, employers should comprehensively consider the nature, frequency, and circumstances of the misconduct, the employee’s past work attitude, and the characteristics of the position, and first review stepwise sanctions such as reprimand, wage reduction, or suspension from duty. Dismissal should be exercised only as a last resort in cases so serious that, by social standards, the employment relationship cannot reasonably be maintained.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was found that the employee had been absent without leave for one day, and thus the fact of poor attendance was recognised. However, the alleged assault on the representative director was not sufficiently proven and therefore could not be regarded as a ground for discipline. Accordingly, only the aspect of poor attendance was recognised as a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Imposing dismissal, the most severe sanction under the disciplinary scale, solely on the basis of the ground of poor attendance constituted a sanction that, by social standards, had clearly lost its reasonableness and therefore amounted to an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was found that the employee had been absent without leave for one day, and thus the fact of poor attendance was recognised. However, the alleged assault on the representative director was not sufficiently proven and therefore could not be regarded as a ground for discipline. Accordingly, only the aspect of poor attendance was recognised as a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Imposing dismissal, the most severe sanction under the disciplinary scale, solely on the basis of the ground of poor attendance constituted a sanction that, by social standards, had clearly lost its reasonableness and therefore amounted to an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - · Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (one day of unauthorised absence), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorised absence, 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, “‘Benefit of Remedy for Release from Position (Misconduct Reported in the Media)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (one day of unauthorised absence) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Severity (One Day of Unauthorised Absence).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
