Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Manipulation of Recruitment Evaluation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 303)
- Date2026/03/21 04:08
- Read 195
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (manipulation of recruitment evaluation).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9525 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employer imposed disciplinary measures on the employee on the grounds of improper staff recruitment and obstruction of inspection work. Based on the submitted materials and the results of the hearing, all grounds for discipline were found to be established.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Even taking into account the necessity of hiring new employees and the unavoidable circumstances arising from following a superior’s instructions, (1) the employee prepared false recruitment evaluation materials to facilitate the hiring of a particular employee and, when the inspector belonging to the central federation requested submission of materials, submitted a forged document in which the evaluator and scores were altered instead of the original document, thereby obstructing the supervisory authority’s inspection work, making the matter very serious; (2) the Saemaul Geumgo Federation, after reviewing the misconduct, comprehensively considered operational risks to the organization, external trust in the credit union, and the scope of legal and institutional responsibility under the supervisory framework, and then instructed a three‑month suspension from duty, pursuant to which the disciplinary action in this case was taken. In light of these circumstances, the disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have exceeded the bounds of discretionary authority.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee of a Saemaul Geumgo (community credit cooperative) received disciplinary action (three months’ suspension from duty) for falsifying evaluation materials during the recruitment process for a new employee and submitting forged documents during an inspection by the central federation. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy, claiming that the measure constituted unfair discipline equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Gyeonggi 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 dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
As in unfair dismissal cases, the Labor Relations Commission focused its determination on whether this disciplinary disposition exceeded the scope of the disciplinary authority’s discretion.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was:
“Whether a three‑month suspension from duty imposed for misconduct consisting of falsifying evaluation materials in the staff recruitment process and submitting forged documents to an inspection authority constitutes unfair dismissal or unfair discipline that is markedly excessive by social standards.”
In addition, the following was also at issue:
“Whether the disciplinary procedures—such as convening a personnel committee, providing an opportunity to present explanations, and giving written notice of the grounds and timing of the discipline—were conducted lawfully at the level required by the relevant regulations and case law.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the grounds for discipline asserted by the employer—improper staff recruitment and obstruction of inspection work—were all established in light of the submitted materials and the results of the hearing; that the seriousness of the matter was very great, given that the employee prepared false recruitment evaluation materials to secure the hiring of a particular employee and submitted a forged document in which the evaluator and scores were altered, instead of the original, in response to a supervisory inspector’s request for materials, thereby obstructing the supervisory authority’s inspection work; and that the Saemaul Geumgo Federation, after reviewing the misconduct, comprehensively considered operational risks to the organization, issues of external trust in the credit union, and the scope of legal and institutional responsibility under the supervisory framework, and then instructed a three‑month suspension from duty, pursuant to which the disciplinary action in this case was taken.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the level of discipline could not be considered to have so clearly lost its validity by social standards as to constitute an abuse of the disciplinary authority’s discretion. It also found no material defect in the disciplinary procedures, given that a personnel committee was convened to provide the employee with an opportunity to present explanations and that the disciplinary resolution, stating the grounds and timing of the discipline, was notified in writing.
The Commission thus held that, in this case, the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures were all established, and therefore the disciplinary disposition could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to bear in mind that the authenticity of documents and compliance with procedures are subject to particularly strict requirements in work related to recruitment, responses to inspections, and dealings with public or supervisory authorities. Where multiple acts of misconduct are combined and directly and adversely affect the organization’s external credibility and supervisory framework, even severe disciplinary measures such as suspension from duty may be found justified by the Labor Relations Commission.
It is also important, during the disciplinary process, to appear before the personnel committee, provide sufficient explanations, and actively exercise one’s right of defense by preparing and submitting relevant materials where necessary. One should also note that merely asserting that “the matter is not serious” will rarely suffice to establish that the employer has abused its discretion in setting the level of discipline.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to have the legitimacy of the level of discipline recognized, it is important to specifically review and record the motives and circumstances of the misconduct, its impact on the organization and external trust, and the scope of legal responsibility under the supervisory and regulatory framework. In particular, in work related to recruitment, inspection, and supervision, acts such as preparing false documents, forging documents, and obstructing inspection work may constitute multiple grounds for discipline and serve as aggravating factors. Accordingly, when determining the level of discipline, these elements should be clearly documented as the basis for the decision.
In addition, faithfully implementing disciplinary procedures—such as convening a personnel committee, providing an opportunity to present explanations, and giving written notice specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline—in accordance with the rules of employment, collective agreements, and the standards established by case law is crucial to prevailing in disputes over unfair dismissal or unfair discipline.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employer imposed disciplinary measures on the employee on the grounds of improper staff recruitment and obstruction of inspection work, and, based on the submitted materials and the results of the hearing, all grounds for discipline were found to be established.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Even taking into account the necessity of hiring new employees and the unavoidable circumstances arising from following a superior’s instructions, (1) the employee prepared false recruitment evaluation materials to facilitate the hiring of a particular employee and, when an inspector belonging to the central federation requested submission of materials, submitted a forged document in which the evaluator and evaluation scores were altered instead of the original document, thereby obstructing the supervisory authority’s inspection work, making the matter serious; (2) after reviewing the misconduct, the Saemaul Geumgo Federation comprehensively considered operational risks to the organization, issues of external trust in the credit union, and the scope of legal and institutional responsibility under the supervisory framework, and then instructed a three‑month suspension from duty, pursuant to which the disciplinary action in this case was taken. In light of these circumstances, the disciplinary action in this case cannot be deemed to have departed from the bounds of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
A personnel committee was convened to allow the employee to explain the grounds for discipline, and the employee appeared before the committee. The employer notified the employee in writing of the disciplinary resolution, specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline. Accordingly, no procedural defects were found.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employer imposed disciplinary measures on the employee on the grounds of improper staff recruitment and obstruction of inspection work, and, based on the submitted materials and the results of the hearing, all grounds for discipline were found to be established.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Even taking into account the necessity of hiring new employees and the unavoidable circumstances arising from following a superior’s instructions, (1) the employee prepared false recruitment evaluation materials to facilitate the hiring of a particular employee and, when an inspector belonging to the central federation requested submission of materials, submitted a forged document in which the evaluator and evaluation scores were altered instead of the original document, thereby obstructing the supervisory authority’s inspection work, making the matter serious; (2) after reviewing the misconduct, the Saemaul Geumgo Federation comprehensively considered operational risks to the organization, issues of external trust in the credit union, and the scope of legal and institutional responsibility under the supervisory framework, and then instructed a three‑month suspension from duty, pursuant to which the disciplinary action in this case was taken. In light of these circumstances, the disciplinary action in this case cannot be deemed to have departed from the bounds of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
A personnel committee was convened to allow the employee to explain the grounds for discipline, and the employee appeared before the committee. The employer notified the employee in writing of the disciplinary resolution, specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline. Accordingly, no procedural defects were found.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unapproved Absence (Failure to Return After Expiration of Sick Leave)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (manipulation of recruitment evaluation), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Unapproved Absence (Failure to Return After Expiration of Sick Leave)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (manipulation of recruitment evaluation) at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Manipulation of Recruitment Evaluation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (manipulation of recruitment evaluation).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9525 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employer imposed disciplinary measures on the employee on the grounds of improper staff recruitment and obstruction of inspection work. Based on the submitted materials and the results of the hearing, all grounds for discipline were found to be established.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Even taking into account the necessity of hiring new employees and the unavoidable circumstances arising from following a superior’s instructions, (1) the employee prepared false recruitment evaluation materials to facilitate the hiring of a particular employee and, when the inspector belonging to the central federation requested submission of materials, submitted a forged document in which the evaluator and scores were altered instead of the original document, thereby obstructing the supervisory authority’s inspection work, making the matter very serious; (2) the Saemaul Geumgo Federation, after reviewing the misconduct, comprehensively considered operational risks to the organization, external trust in the credit union, and the scope of legal and institutional responsibility under the supervisory framework, and then instructed a three‑month suspension from duty, pursuant to which the disciplinary action in this case was taken. In light of these circumstances, the disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have exceeded the bounds of discretionary authority.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee of a Saemaul Geumgo (community credit cooperative) received disciplinary action (three months’ suspension from duty) for falsifying evaluation materials during the recruitment process for a new employee and submitting forged documents during an inspection by the central federation. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy, claiming that the measure constituted unfair discipline equivalent to unfair dismissal.
The Gyeonggi 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 dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
As in unfair dismissal cases, the Labor Relations Commission focused its determination on whether this disciplinary disposition exceeded the scope of the disciplinary authority’s discretion.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was:
“Whether a three‑month suspension from duty imposed for misconduct consisting of falsifying evaluation materials in the staff recruitment process and submitting forged documents to an inspection authority constitutes unfair dismissal or unfair discipline that is markedly excessive by social standards.”
In addition, the following was also at issue:
“Whether the disciplinary procedures—such as convening a personnel committee, providing an opportunity to present explanations, and giving written notice of the grounds and timing of the discipline—were conducted lawfully at the level required by the relevant regulations and case law.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the grounds for discipline asserted by the employer—improper staff recruitment and obstruction of inspection work—were all established in light of the submitted materials and the results of the hearing; that the seriousness of the matter was very great, given that the employee prepared false recruitment evaluation materials to secure the hiring of a particular employee and submitted a forged document in which the evaluator and scores were altered, instead of the original, in response to a supervisory inspector’s request for materials, thereby obstructing the supervisory authority’s inspection work; and that the Saemaul Geumgo Federation, after reviewing the misconduct, comprehensively considered operational risks to the organization, issues of external trust in the credit union, and the scope of legal and institutional responsibility under the supervisory framework, and then instructed a three‑month suspension from duty, pursuant to which the disciplinary action in this case was taken.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the level of discipline could not be considered to have so clearly lost its validity by social standards as to constitute an abuse of the disciplinary authority’s discretion. It also found no material defect in the disciplinary procedures, given that a personnel committee was convened to provide the employee with an opportunity to present explanations and that the disciplinary resolution, stating the grounds and timing of the discipline, was notified in writing.
The Commission thus held that, in this case, the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures were all established, and therefore the disciplinary disposition could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to bear in mind that the authenticity of documents and compliance with procedures are subject to particularly strict requirements in work related to recruitment, responses to inspections, and dealings with public or supervisory authorities. Where multiple acts of misconduct are combined and directly and adversely affect the organization’s external credibility and supervisory framework, even severe disciplinary measures such as suspension from duty may be found justified by the Labor Relations Commission.
It is also important, during the disciplinary process, to appear before the personnel committee, provide sufficient explanations, and actively exercise one’s right of defense by preparing and submitting relevant materials where necessary. One should also note that merely asserting that “the matter is not serious” will rarely suffice to establish that the employer has abused its discretion in setting the level of discipline.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to have the legitimacy of the level of discipline recognized, it is important to specifically review and record the motives and circumstances of the misconduct, its impact on the organization and external trust, and the scope of legal responsibility under the supervisory and regulatory framework. In particular, in work related to recruitment, inspection, and supervision, acts such as preparing false documents, forging documents, and obstructing inspection work may constitute multiple grounds for discipline and serve as aggravating factors. Accordingly, when determining the level of discipline, these elements should be clearly documented as the basis for the decision.
In addition, faithfully implementing disciplinary procedures—such as convening a personnel committee, providing an opportunity to present explanations, and giving written notice specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline—in accordance with the rules of employment, collective agreements, and the standards established by case law is crucial to prevailing in disputes over unfair dismissal or unfair discipline.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employer imposed disciplinary measures on the employee on the grounds of improper staff recruitment and obstruction of inspection work, and, based on the submitted materials and the results of the hearing, all grounds for discipline were found to be established.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Even taking into account the necessity of hiring new employees and the unavoidable circumstances arising from following a superior’s instructions, (1) the employee prepared false recruitment evaluation materials to facilitate the hiring of a particular employee and, when an inspector belonging to the central federation requested submission of materials, submitted a forged document in which the evaluator and evaluation scores were altered instead of the original document, thereby obstructing the supervisory authority’s inspection work, making the matter serious; (2) after reviewing the misconduct, the Saemaul Geumgo Federation comprehensively considered operational risks to the organization, issues of external trust in the credit union, and the scope of legal and institutional responsibility under the supervisory framework, and then instructed a three‑month suspension from duty, pursuant to which the disciplinary action in this case was taken. In light of these circumstances, the disciplinary action in this case cannot be deemed to have departed from the bounds of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
A personnel committee was convened to allow the employee to explain the grounds for discipline, and the employee appeared before the committee. The employer notified the employee in writing of the disciplinary resolution, specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline. Accordingly, no procedural defects were found.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employer imposed disciplinary measures on the employee on the grounds of improper staff recruitment and obstruction of inspection work, and, based on the submitted materials and the results of the hearing, all grounds for discipline were found to be established.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Even taking into account the necessity of hiring new employees and the unavoidable circumstances arising from following a superior’s instructions, (1) the employee prepared false recruitment evaluation materials to facilitate the hiring of a particular employee and, when an inspector belonging to the central federation requested submission of materials, submitted a forged document in which the evaluator and evaluation scores were altered instead of the original document, thereby obstructing the supervisory authority’s inspection work, making the matter serious; (2) after reviewing the misconduct, the Saemaul Geumgo Federation comprehensively considered operational risks to the organization, issues of external trust in the credit union, and the scope of legal and institutional responsibility under the supervisory framework, and then instructed a three‑month suspension from duty, pursuant to which the disciplinary action in this case was taken. In light of these circumstances, the disciplinary action in this case cannot be deemed to have departed from the bounds of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
A personnel committee was convened to allow the employee to explain the grounds for discipline, and the employee appeared before the committee. The employer notified the employee in writing of the disciplinary resolution, specifying the grounds and timing of the discipline. Accordingly, no procedural defects were found.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unapproved Absence (Failure to Return After Expiration of Sick Leave)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (manipulation of recruitment evaluation), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Unapproved Absence (Failure to Return After Expiration of Sick Leave)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (manipulation of recruitment evaluation) at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Manipulation of Recruitment Evaluation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
