Corporate trends / Performance record
“Disciplinary Limitation Period and Level of Discipline (Leakage of Company Secrets)” Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 306)
- Date2026/03/22 04:08
- Read 191
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “disciplinary limitation period and level of discipline (leakage of company secrets).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9073 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
(a) Whether the exclusion period for filing this remedy application had lapsed – As the collective agreement provides that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, the application for remedy was filed within the exclusion period.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker who had been dismissed for allegedly leaking company secrets to an external party filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The worker argued that the dismissal was imposed too late and thus after the disciplinary limitation period had expired, that the level of dismissal was excessive, and that there were defects in the disciplinary procedure.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the lawfulness of the employer’s exercise of its disciplinary authority, focusing on the provisions of the collective agreement and personnel regulations, as well as the exclusion period under the Labor Relations Commission Act.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were: “In a situation where the collective agreement provides that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission had lapsed; whether, in the absence of an explicit provision on the disciplinary limitation period, a clause requiring that a disciplinary committee be convened ‘within 30 days’ can be regarded as a disciplinary limitation period; whether the leakage of company secrets constitutes a just cause and appropriate level for disciplinary dismissal; and whether the disciplinary procedure was lawfully conducted.”
The panel in this case, taking into account that the collective agreement provides that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, that there is no explicit time limit on the disciplinary limitation period in the disciplinary provisions, that the leakage of company secrets constitutes a ground for discipline under the collective agreement and personnel regulations, and that it is difficult to find that the worker’s right to defense was infringed in the operation of the disciplinary committee and the process of written notification,
held that the dismissal in this case was justified in terms of the period for exercising the disciplinary authority, the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the disciplinary procedure, and therefore did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
First, the Labor Relations Commission held that, because the collective agreement provides that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy under the Labor Standards Act and the Labor Relations Commission Act must be calculated on the premise that the effect is suspended, and that the application in this case was filed within that period.
Second, the wording in the personnel regulations that “a disciplinary committee shall be convened within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds for discipline” is merely a directory provision instructing the prompt progress of the disciplinary procedure, and cannot be regarded as a provision on the disciplinary limitation period that restricts the exercise of the disciplinary authority itself. Accordingly, the argument that the limitation period had expired was rejected.
Third, the act of leaking company secrets clearly falls under the grounds for discipline set forth in the collective agreement and personnel regulations, and the intentional leakage of business secrets constitutes a serious misconduct. Therefore, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal was appropriate. The Commission further found that the right to defense was guaranteed in the disciplinary procedure and that written notification was provided, so there was no serious procedural defect.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is necessary to check carefully whether the collective agreement or work rules contain a provision that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, and, based on that, how the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission is to be calculated.
In addition, even where there is a provision such as “a disciplinary committee shall be convened within ○ days after the occurrence of the grounds for discipline,” it must be interpreted within the overall structure of the collective agreement and personnel regulations whether this is in fact a disciplinary limitation period (a time limit within which discipline may be imposed) or merely a procedural time limit.
Above all, violations relating to company secrets, trade secrets, and other business-related confidential information tend to be regarded by both the Labor Relations Commission and the courts as serious misconduct that can justify dismissal. Accordingly, special care must be taken in handling such materials and in any external transmission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to make a policy decision on whether to expressly provide for a disciplinary limitation period in the collective agreement and work rules, or to provide only for a time limit for convening a disciplinary committee, and to clarify the structure of the provisions so that limitation periods and procedural time limits are not confused in the wording.
It is also helpful, for purposes of having the legitimacy of disciplinary measures recognized by the Labor Relations Commission, to specify in concrete terms that the leakage of company secrets and business-related confidential information constitutes grounds for discipline, and to establish standards for the level of discipline that correspond to the seriousness of such conduct.
In addition, the employer should faithfully comply with the procedural requirements under the collective agreement and work rules, such as the composition of the disciplinary committee, the guarantee of the right to defense, and written notification. Doing so reduces the risk that, even where grounds for discipline are recognized, the dismissal will be found to be unfair due to procedural defects.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the exclusion period for filing this application for remedy had lapsed – As the collective agreement provides that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, the application for remedy was filed within the exclusion period.
(b) Whether the disciplinary limitation period had expired – As there is no explicit provision on the disciplinary limitation period and the provision that “a disciplinary committee shall be convened within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds for discipline” cannot be regarded as a provision on the disciplinary limitation period, the limitation period had not expired.
(c) Whether grounds for discipline existed – The act of leaking company secrets constitutes a ground for discipline under the collective agreement and personnel regulations.
(d) Appropriateness of the level of discipline – The intentional leakage of business secrets constitutes serious misconduct, and therefore the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is appropriate.
(e) Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure – There was no infringement of the right to defense, and the written notification was lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the exclusion period for filing this application for remedy had lapsed – As the collective agreement provides that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, the application for remedy was filed within the exclusion period.
(b) Whether the disciplinary limitation period had expired – As there is no explicit provision on the disciplinary limitation period and the provision that “a disciplinary committee shall be convened within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds for discipline” cannot be regarded as a provision on the disciplinary limitation period, the limitation period had not expired.
(c) Whether grounds for discipline existed – The act of leaking company secrets constitutes a ground for discipline under the collective agreement and personnel regulations.
(d) Appropriateness of the level of discipline – The intentional leakage of business secrets constitutes serious misconduct, and therefore the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is appropriate.
(e) Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure – There was no infringement of the right to defense, and the written notification was lawful. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Reassignment (Sales Group Reorganization)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Original decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary limitation period and level of discipline (leakage of company secrets), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy and non-compliance 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Reassignment (Sales Group Reorganization)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the disciplinary limitation period and level of discipline (leakage of company secrets) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Limitation Period and Level of Discipline (Leakage of Company Secrets).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “disciplinary limitation period and level of discipline (leakage of company secrets).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9073 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
(a) Whether the exclusion period for filing this remedy application had lapsed – As the collective agreement provides that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, the application for remedy was filed within the exclusion period.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker who had been dismissed for allegedly leaking company secrets to an external party filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The worker argued that the dismissal was imposed too late and thus after the disciplinary limitation period had expired, that the level of dismissal was excessive, and that there were defects in the disciplinary procedure.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the lawfulness of the employer’s exercise of its disciplinary authority, focusing on the provisions of the collective agreement and personnel regulations, as well as the exclusion period under the Labor Relations Commission Act.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were: “In a situation where the collective agreement provides that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission had lapsed; whether, in the absence of an explicit provision on the disciplinary limitation period, a clause requiring that a disciplinary committee be convened ‘within 30 days’ can be regarded as a disciplinary limitation period; whether the leakage of company secrets constitutes a just cause and appropriate level for disciplinary dismissal; and whether the disciplinary procedure was lawfully conducted.”
The panel in this case, taking into account that the collective agreement provides that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, that there is no explicit time limit on the disciplinary limitation period in the disciplinary provisions, that the leakage of company secrets constitutes a ground for discipline under the collective agreement and personnel regulations, and that it is difficult to find that the worker’s right to defense was infringed in the operation of the disciplinary committee and the process of written notification,
held that the dismissal in this case was justified in terms of the period for exercising the disciplinary authority, the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the disciplinary procedure, and therefore did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
First, the Labor Relations Commission held that, because the collective agreement provides that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy under the Labor Standards Act and the Labor Relations Commission Act must be calculated on the premise that the effect is suspended, and that the application in this case was filed within that period.
Second, the wording in the personnel regulations that “a disciplinary committee shall be convened within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds for discipline” is merely a directory provision instructing the prompt progress of the disciplinary procedure, and cannot be regarded as a provision on the disciplinary limitation period that restricts the exercise of the disciplinary authority itself. Accordingly, the argument that the limitation period had expired was rejected.
Third, the act of leaking company secrets clearly falls under the grounds for discipline set forth in the collective agreement and personnel regulations, and the intentional leakage of business secrets constitutes a serious misconduct. Therefore, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal was appropriate. The Commission further found that the right to defense was guaranteed in the disciplinary procedure and that written notification was provided, so there was no serious procedural defect.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is necessary to check carefully whether the collective agreement or work rules contain a provision that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, and, based on that, how the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission is to be calculated.
In addition, even where there is a provision such as “a disciplinary committee shall be convened within ○ days after the occurrence of the grounds for discipline,” it must be interpreted within the overall structure of the collective agreement and personnel regulations whether this is in fact a disciplinary limitation period (a time limit within which discipline may be imposed) or merely a procedural time limit.
Above all, violations relating to company secrets, trade secrets, and other business-related confidential information tend to be regarded by both the Labor Relations Commission and the courts as serious misconduct that can justify dismissal. Accordingly, special care must be taken in handling such materials and in any external transmission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to make a policy decision on whether to expressly provide for a disciplinary limitation period in the collective agreement and work rules, or to provide only for a time limit for convening a disciplinary committee, and to clarify the structure of the provisions so that limitation periods and procedural time limits are not confused in the wording.
It is also helpful, for purposes of having the legitimacy of disciplinary measures recognized by the Labor Relations Commission, to specify in concrete terms that the leakage of company secrets and business-related confidential information constitutes grounds for discipline, and to establish standards for the level of discipline that correspond to the seriousness of such conduct.
In addition, the employer should faithfully comply with the procedural requirements under the collective agreement and work rules, such as the composition of the disciplinary committee, the guarantee of the right to defense, and written notification. Doing so reduces the risk that, even where grounds for discipline are recognized, the dismissal will be found to be unfair due to procedural defects.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the exclusion period for filing this application for remedy had lapsed – As the collective agreement provides that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, the application for remedy was filed within the exclusion period.
(b) Whether the disciplinary limitation period had expired – As there is no explicit provision on the disciplinary limitation period and the provision that “a disciplinary committee shall be convened within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds for discipline” cannot be regarded as a provision on the disciplinary limitation period, the limitation period had not expired.
(c) Whether grounds for discipline existed – The act of leaking company secrets constitutes a ground for discipline under the collective agreement and personnel regulations.
(d) Appropriateness of the level of discipline – The intentional leakage of business secrets constitutes serious misconduct, and therefore the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is appropriate.
(e) Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure – There was no infringement of the right to defense, and the written notification was lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the exclusion period for filing this application for remedy had lapsed – As the collective agreement provides that the effect of the original disposition is suspended upon a request for reconsideration, the application for remedy was filed within the exclusion period.
(b) Whether the disciplinary limitation period had expired – As there is no explicit provision on the disciplinary limitation period and the provision that “a disciplinary committee shall be convened within 30 days from the date of occurrence of the grounds for discipline” cannot be regarded as a provision on the disciplinary limitation period, the limitation period had not expired.
(c) Whether grounds for discipline existed – The act of leaking company secrets constitutes a ground for discipline under the collective agreement and personnel regulations.
(d) Appropriateness of the level of discipline – The intentional leakage of business secrets constitutes serious misconduct, and therefore the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is appropriate.
(e) Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure – There was no infringement of the right to defense, and the written notification was lawful. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Reassignment (Sales Group Reorganization)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Original decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary limitation period and level of discipline (leakage of company secrets), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy and non-compliance 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Reassignment (Sales Group Reorganization)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the disciplinary limitation period and level of discipline (leakage of company secrets) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Limitation Period and Level of Discipline (Leakage of Company Secrets).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
