Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Procedural Defects in Disciplinary Action (Parking Team Leader’s Hearsay)’ – Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 292)
- Date2026/03/17 04:13
- Read 209
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “procedural defects in disciplinary action (parking team leader’s hearsay).”
Adjudicatory body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2025Buhae9507 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.12 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: The facts presented by the employer as grounds for dismissal were based merely on hearsay from the parking team leader and others, rather than objective evidence, and were difficult to regard as just cause for dismissal; the dismissal did not satisfy the principle of last resort; and there were defects in that the employer failed to follow the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment. In light of these factors, the dismissal was held to lack just cause. /
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose when an employee at a business engaged in managing facilities such as apartment complexes was dismissed and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal. The employer, relying on statements from the parking team leader and others, alleged that the employee had engaged in misconduct and proceeded to dismiss the employee. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission found the dismissal to be unfair and fully accepted the employee’s claims.
The Commission reached its decision after comprehensively examining the existence and legitimacy of the grounds for dismissal, compliance with the principle that dismissal must be a last resort, and whether the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment had been followed.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a dismissal is justified when it is based solely on hearsay and vague suspicions from the parking team leader and others, and is carried out without properly following the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the grounds for dismissal presented by the employer were based merely on hearsay, not on objective evidence; that even if the hearsay were assumed to be true, it would be difficult to regard the conduct as serious misconduct warranting dismissal; that there was no indication the employer had considered other disciplinary or personnel measures such as a pay cut or reprimand prior to dismissal, so the dismissal did not satisfy the principle that dismissal must be a last resort; and that there were procedural defects in that the employer failed to comply with procedures prescribed in the rules of employment, such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity to be heard.
In light of these factors, the Commission held that the dismissal was a measure that, in light of social norms, had clearly lost its reasonableness and could not be recognized as justified, and ultimately ruled that it was unfair.
[Supplementary Explanation of the Commission’s Reasoning – Relevant Legal Principles]
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, in order to dismiss a worker, an employer must notify the worker in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal, and that the dismissal only becomes effective upon such written notice. The Supreme Court has held that the written notice of dismissal must set out specific facts sufficient for the employee to understand the reasons for dismissal from the employee’s standpoint, and that merely listing provisions of a collective agreement or rules of employment is insufficient.
In addition, in the case of disciplinary dismissal, the employer must comply with the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment or collective agreement, and the Commission reaffirmed that it is not permissible to cure procedural defects by subsequently supplementing the grounds for dismissal or by retroactively issuing written notice after the dismissal has already been effected.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
In similar situations, employees should calmly examine whether the grounds for dismissal asserted by the employer are supported by “objective evidence” or are merely at the level of rumors or hearsay. Employees should also check whether the procedural requirements were properly observed, such as whether a disciplinary committee was convened before the dismissal, whether an opportunity to be heard was provided, and whether the written notice of dismissal contained specific details. If such defects exist, employees should actively consider filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Whether dismissal was truly a last resort is also an important issue. It is helpful to organize and assert evidence as to what level of discipline the company has imposed in past similar cases, and whether a less severe measure would have been sufficient in the employee’s own case.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, instead of deciding on severe disciplinary measures based solely on hearsay from on-site supervisors such as the parking team leader, the employer should first sufficiently collect and retain objective evidence such as CCTV footage, attendance records, and written statements before determining whether discipline is warranted. If the employer fails to strictly follow the procedures set out in the rules of employment—even in a formal sense—such as convening a disciplinary committee, providing prior notice, granting an opportunity to be heard, and recording the contents of resolutions, there is a very high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find unfair dismissal, even if some misconduct is established.
Furthermore, given that dismissal is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, the employer should first consider stepwise disciplinary measures such as warnings, reprimands, pay cuts, or suspension from duty, and internally document why organizational order cannot be maintained through means other than dismissal. This process can serve as an important basis for having the “last resort” nature of the measure recognized in other types of personnel actions as well, such as redundancy dismissals.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The facts presented by the employer as grounds for dismissal were based merely on hearsay from the parking team leader and others, rather than objective evidence, and were difficult to regard as just cause for dismissal; the dismissal did not satisfy the principle that dismissal must be a last resort; and there were defects in that the employer failed to follow the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment. In light of these factors, the dismissal was held to lack just cause.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The facts presented by the employer as grounds for dismissal were based merely on hearsay from the parking team leader and others, rather than objective evidence, and were difficult to regard as just cause for dismissal; the dismissal did not satisfy the principle that dismissal must be a last resort; and there were defects in that the employer failed to follow the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment. In light of these factors, the dismissal was held to lack just cause. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Succession of Employment · Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Security Service Contract)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Transfer Order (Refusal of Operating Room Rotation System)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case No.: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, procedural defects in disciplinary action (parking team leader’s hearsay), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance 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 Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Succession of Employment · Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Security Service Contract)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to procedural defects in disciplinary action (parking team leader’s hearsay) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Procedural Defects in Disciplinary Action (Parking Team Leader’s Hearsay).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “procedural defects in disciplinary action (parking team leader’s hearsay).”
Adjudicatory body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2025Buhae9507 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.12 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: The facts presented by the employer as grounds for dismissal were based merely on hearsay from the parking team leader and others, rather than objective evidence, and were difficult to regard as just cause for dismissal; the dismissal did not satisfy the principle of last resort; and there were defects in that the employer failed to follow the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment. In light of these factors, the dismissal was held to lack just cause. /
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose when an employee at a business engaged in managing facilities such as apartment complexes was dismissed and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal. The employer, relying on statements from the parking team leader and others, alleged that the employee had engaged in misconduct and proceeded to dismiss the employee. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission found the dismissal to be unfair and fully accepted the employee’s claims.
The Commission reached its decision after comprehensively examining the existence and legitimacy of the grounds for dismissal, compliance with the principle that dismissal must be a last resort, and whether the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment had been followed.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a dismissal is justified when it is based solely on hearsay and vague suspicions from the parking team leader and others, and is carried out without properly following the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the grounds for dismissal presented by the employer were based merely on hearsay, not on objective evidence; that even if the hearsay were assumed to be true, it would be difficult to regard the conduct as serious misconduct warranting dismissal; that there was no indication the employer had considered other disciplinary or personnel measures such as a pay cut or reprimand prior to dismissal, so the dismissal did not satisfy the principle that dismissal must be a last resort; and that there were procedural defects in that the employer failed to comply with procedures prescribed in the rules of employment, such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity to be heard.
In light of these factors, the Commission held that the dismissal was a measure that, in light of social norms, had clearly lost its reasonableness and could not be recognized as justified, and ultimately ruled that it was unfair.
[Supplementary Explanation of the Commission’s Reasoning – Relevant Legal Principles]
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, in order to dismiss a worker, an employer must notify the worker in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal, and that the dismissal only becomes effective upon such written notice. The Supreme Court has held that the written notice of dismissal must set out specific facts sufficient for the employee to understand the reasons for dismissal from the employee’s standpoint, and that merely listing provisions of a collective agreement or rules of employment is insufficient.
In addition, in the case of disciplinary dismissal, the employer must comply with the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment or collective agreement, and the Commission reaffirmed that it is not permissible to cure procedural defects by subsequently supplementing the grounds for dismissal or by retroactively issuing written notice after the dismissal has already been effected.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
In similar situations, employees should calmly examine whether the grounds for dismissal asserted by the employer are supported by “objective evidence” or are merely at the level of rumors or hearsay. Employees should also check whether the procedural requirements were properly observed, such as whether a disciplinary committee was convened before the dismissal, whether an opportunity to be heard was provided, and whether the written notice of dismissal contained specific details. If such defects exist, employees should actively consider filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Whether dismissal was truly a last resort is also an important issue. It is helpful to organize and assert evidence as to what level of discipline the company has imposed in past similar cases, and whether a less severe measure would have been sufficient in the employee’s own case.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, instead of deciding on severe disciplinary measures based solely on hearsay from on-site supervisors such as the parking team leader, the employer should first sufficiently collect and retain objective evidence such as CCTV footage, attendance records, and written statements before determining whether discipline is warranted. If the employer fails to strictly follow the procedures set out in the rules of employment—even in a formal sense—such as convening a disciplinary committee, providing prior notice, granting an opportunity to be heard, and recording the contents of resolutions, there is a very high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find unfair dismissal, even if some misconduct is established.
Furthermore, given that dismissal is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, the employer should first consider stepwise disciplinary measures such as warnings, reprimands, pay cuts, or suspension from duty, and internally document why organizational order cannot be maintained through means other than dismissal. This process can serve as an important basis for having the “last resort” nature of the measure recognized in other types of personnel actions as well, such as redundancy dismissals.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The facts presented by the employer as grounds for dismissal were based merely on hearsay from the parking team leader and others, rather than objective evidence, and were difficult to regard as just cause for dismissal; the dismissal did not satisfy the principle that dismissal must be a last resort; and there were defects in that the employer failed to follow the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment. In light of these factors, the dismissal was held to lack just cause.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The facts presented by the employer as grounds for dismissal were based merely on hearsay from the parking team leader and others, rather than objective evidence, and were difficult to regard as just cause for dismissal; the dismissal did not satisfy the principle that dismissal must be a last resort; and there were defects in that the employer failed to follow the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment. In light of these factors, the dismissal was held to lack just cause. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Succession of Employment · Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Security Service Contract)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Transfer Order (Refusal of Operating Room Rotation System)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case No.: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, procedural defects in disciplinary action (parking team leader’s hearsay), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance 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 Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Succession of Employment · Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Security Service Contract)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to procedural defects in disciplinary action (parking team leader’s hearsay) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Procedural Defects in Disciplinary Action (Parking Team Leader’s Hearsay).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
