Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Written Statements · Workplace Conflict)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 322)
- Date2026/03/27 10:25
- Read 190
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld, on the issue of “disciplinary severity (written statements · workplace conflict).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae954 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reexamination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.23 · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Legitimacy of the pay reduction
1) Existence of grounds for discipline
There were grounds for discipline based on the employee’s refusal to submit a written statement of explanation.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal remedy reexamination case, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the company’s pay reduction and suspension from duty were unfair. Both at first instance and before the Central Labor Relations Commission, the decision was that the first-instance ruling should be upheld.
The Labor Relations Commission examined the pay reduction and suspension separately in terms of: (i) existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) legality of the disciplinary procedures. It then found that the measures fell within the scope of the employer’s disciplinary authority.
Labor Law Firm Law& has repeatedly confirmed in similar cases that the level of discipline and the lawfulness of the procedure often become issues just as central as in unfair dismissal and redundancy (collective dismissal) cases.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the pay reduction and suspension imposed for refusing to comply with an order to submit a written statement of explanation, and for conduct that undermined harmony and unity in the workplace, constituted unfair discipline in which the employer deviated from or abused its discretion to such an extent that intervention by the Labor Relations Commission was warranted, in terms of grounds for discipline, disciplinary severity, and disciplinary procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the request for a written statement of explanation was a legitimate work order aimed at maintaining workplace discipline and ascertaining the circumstances of misconduct; that repeated refusal to comply with such an order constitutes grounds for discipline; and that conduct by the employee that seriously undermined harmony and unity in the workplace also falls under the grounds for discipline set out in the rules of employment.
Taking into account that there were grounds for imposing a pay reduction and suspension on the employee; that the employee had a prior disciplinary record, including being disciplined again during a previous disciplinary period, and showed little sign of remorse; that there were no apparent mitigating circumstances; that the pay reduction and suspension did not appear, by social standards, to be excessively severe; and that the disciplinary procedures were followed—such as notifying the employee seven days in advance of the personnel committee meeting in accordance with the rules of employment and providing an opportunity to explain the misconduct—the Commission held that the measures were lawful actions within the employer’s discretionary authority over discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, when an incident or dispute occurs, the company’s request for a written statement of explanation or incident report should, in principle, be viewed as a procedure separate from discipline. However, you must be aware that repeated refusal to comply with a legitimate order can itself constitute an independent ground for discipline.
In situations of workplace conflict, if emotional reactions lead to a pattern of words or conduct that undermines organizational harmony and unity, such behavior may accumulate and later operate, at the Labor Relations Commission stage, as a factor that aggravates the level of discipline when considered together with prior disciplinary records.
When challenging disciplinary action, it is important not only to argue that there were no grounds for discipline, but also to systematically organize evidence on whether the level of discipline is, by social standards, conspicuously excessive, and whether your right to defend yourself was in fact restricted in the course of the procedure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, it is necessary to clearly set out in the rules of employment the procedures for discipline, including orders to submit written statements or incident reports, convening and notifying the personnel committee, and providing an opportunity to explain. In actual cases, these procedures should be faithfully implemented, leaving a documentary record.
When determining the level of discipline, it is advisable to comprehensively consider the nature and degree of the misconduct, its impact on workplace order, any prior disciplinary history, whether the damage has been remedied, and the employee’s remorse, and to establish internal standards so that the outcome does not appear, by social standards, conspicuously excessive.
In particular, where suspension or pay reduction is imposed on the grounds of workplace conflict or undermining organizational atmosphere, it becomes easier to have the legitimacy of the discipline recognized by the Labor Relations Commission if the specific facts and the impact on the organization are recorded objectively.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the Pay Reduction
1) Existence of grounds for discipline
There were grounds for discipline based on the employee’s refusal to submit a written statement of explanation.
2) Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given that the grounds for discipline were established and considering the employee’s attitude, the level of discipline was not excessive.
3) Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employer notified the employee seven days in advance of attendance at the personnel committee in accordance with the rules of employment and is deemed to have sufficiently provided the employee with an opportunity to explain the misconduct. As there were no additional circumstances that could be regarded as defects in the disciplinary procedures prescribed by the rules of employment, it was determined that there were no procedural flaws in the disciplinary process.
B. Legitimacy of the Suspension
1) Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct that undermined harmony and unity in the workplace was established, and it was legitimate for the employer to treat this as grounds for discipline.
2) Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given that the grounds for discipline were established, that the employee was disciplined again during a prior disciplinary period, and that there were no mitigating circumstances, the level of discipline was not excessive.
3) Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employee’s claim that he or she did not know the exact grounds for discipline and therefore was unable to have an opportunity to explain was found difficult to accept, and it was determined that there were no procedural flaws in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Legitimacy of the Pay Reduction
1) Existence of grounds for discipline
There were grounds for discipline based on the employee’s refusal to submit a written statement of explanation.
2) Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given that the grounds for discipline were established and considering the employee’s attitude, the level of discipline was not excessive.
3) Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employer notified the employee seven days in advance of attendance at the personnel committee in accordance with the rules of employment and is deemed to have sufficiently provided the employee with an opportunity to explain the misconduct. As there were no additional circumstances that could be regarded as defects in the disciplinary procedures prescribed by the rules of employment, it was determined that there were no procedural flaws in the disciplinary process.
B. Legitimacy of the Suspension
1) Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct that undermined harmony and unity in the workplace was established, and it was legitimate for the employer to treat this as grounds for discipline.
2) Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given that the grounds for discipline were established, that the employee was disciplined again during a prior disciplinary period, and that there were no mitigating circumstances, the level of discipline was not excessive.
3) Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employee’s claim that he or she did not know the exact grounds for discipline and therefore was unable to have an opportunity to explain was found difficult to accept, and it was determined that there were no procedural flaws in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Denial of Forced Resignation (Handwritten Resignation Letter · Receipt of Consolation Money)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Coverage (Fewer Than Five Regular Employees)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks Made by Telephone)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (written statements · workplace conflict), violation of company policy · 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Coverage (Fewer Than Five Regular Employees),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (written statements · workplace conflict) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Written Statements · Workplace Conflict).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld, on the issue of “disciplinary severity (written statements · workplace conflict).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae954 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reexamination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.23 · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Legitimacy of the pay reduction
1) Existence of grounds for discipline
There were grounds for discipline based on the employee’s refusal to submit a written statement of explanation.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal remedy reexamination case, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the company’s pay reduction and suspension from duty were unfair. Both at first instance and before the Central Labor Relations Commission, the decision was that the first-instance ruling should be upheld.
The Labor Relations Commission examined the pay reduction and suspension separately in terms of: (i) existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) legality of the disciplinary procedures. It then found that the measures fell within the scope of the employer’s disciplinary authority.
Labor Law Firm Law& has repeatedly confirmed in similar cases that the level of discipline and the lawfulness of the procedure often become issues just as central as in unfair dismissal and redundancy (collective dismissal) cases.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the pay reduction and suspension imposed for refusing to comply with an order to submit a written statement of explanation, and for conduct that undermined harmony and unity in the workplace, constituted unfair discipline in which the employer deviated from or abused its discretion to such an extent that intervention by the Labor Relations Commission was warranted, in terms of grounds for discipline, disciplinary severity, and disciplinary procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the request for a written statement of explanation was a legitimate work order aimed at maintaining workplace discipline and ascertaining the circumstances of misconduct; that repeated refusal to comply with such an order constitutes grounds for discipline; and that conduct by the employee that seriously undermined harmony and unity in the workplace also falls under the grounds for discipline set out in the rules of employment.
Taking into account that there were grounds for imposing a pay reduction and suspension on the employee; that the employee had a prior disciplinary record, including being disciplined again during a previous disciplinary period, and showed little sign of remorse; that there were no apparent mitigating circumstances; that the pay reduction and suspension did not appear, by social standards, to be excessively severe; and that the disciplinary procedures were followed—such as notifying the employee seven days in advance of the personnel committee meeting in accordance with the rules of employment and providing an opportunity to explain the misconduct—the Commission held that the measures were lawful actions within the employer’s discretionary authority over discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, when an incident or dispute occurs, the company’s request for a written statement of explanation or incident report should, in principle, be viewed as a procedure separate from discipline. However, you must be aware that repeated refusal to comply with a legitimate order can itself constitute an independent ground for discipline.
In situations of workplace conflict, if emotional reactions lead to a pattern of words or conduct that undermines organizational harmony and unity, such behavior may accumulate and later operate, at the Labor Relations Commission stage, as a factor that aggravates the level of discipline when considered together with prior disciplinary records.
When challenging disciplinary action, it is important not only to argue that there were no grounds for discipline, but also to systematically organize evidence on whether the level of discipline is, by social standards, conspicuously excessive, and whether your right to defend yourself was in fact restricted in the course of the procedure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, it is necessary to clearly set out in the rules of employment the procedures for discipline, including orders to submit written statements or incident reports, convening and notifying the personnel committee, and providing an opportunity to explain. In actual cases, these procedures should be faithfully implemented, leaving a documentary record.
When determining the level of discipline, it is advisable to comprehensively consider the nature and degree of the misconduct, its impact on workplace order, any prior disciplinary history, whether the damage has been remedied, and the employee’s remorse, and to establish internal standards so that the outcome does not appear, by social standards, conspicuously excessive.
In particular, where suspension or pay reduction is imposed on the grounds of workplace conflict or undermining organizational atmosphere, it becomes easier to have the legitimacy of the discipline recognized by the Labor Relations Commission if the specific facts and the impact on the organization are recorded objectively.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the Pay Reduction
1) Existence of grounds for discipline
There were grounds for discipline based on the employee’s refusal to submit a written statement of explanation.
2) Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given that the grounds for discipline were established and considering the employee’s attitude, the level of discipline was not excessive.
3) Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employer notified the employee seven days in advance of attendance at the personnel committee in accordance with the rules of employment and is deemed to have sufficiently provided the employee with an opportunity to explain the misconduct. As there were no additional circumstances that could be regarded as defects in the disciplinary procedures prescribed by the rules of employment, it was determined that there were no procedural flaws in the disciplinary process.
B. Legitimacy of the Suspension
1) Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct that undermined harmony and unity in the workplace was established, and it was legitimate for the employer to treat this as grounds for discipline.
2) Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given that the grounds for discipline were established, that the employee was disciplined again during a prior disciplinary period, and that there were no mitigating circumstances, the level of discipline was not excessive.
3) Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employee’s claim that he or she did not know the exact grounds for discipline and therefore was unable to have an opportunity to explain was found difficult to accept, and it was determined that there were no procedural flaws in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Legitimacy of the Pay Reduction
1) Existence of grounds for discipline
There were grounds for discipline based on the employee’s refusal to submit a written statement of explanation.
2) Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given that the grounds for discipline were established and considering the employee’s attitude, the level of discipline was not excessive.
3) Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employer notified the employee seven days in advance of attendance at the personnel committee in accordance with the rules of employment and is deemed to have sufficiently provided the employee with an opportunity to explain the misconduct. As there were no additional circumstances that could be regarded as defects in the disciplinary procedures prescribed by the rules of employment, it was determined that there were no procedural flaws in the disciplinary process.
B. Legitimacy of the Suspension
1) Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct that undermined harmony and unity in the workplace was established, and it was legitimate for the employer to treat this as grounds for discipline.
2) Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Given that the grounds for discipline were established, that the employee was disciplined again during a prior disciplinary period, and that there were no mitigating circumstances, the level of discipline was not excessive.
3) Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employee’s claim that he or she did not know the exact grounds for discipline and therefore was unable to have an opportunity to explain was found difficult to accept, and it was determined that there were no procedural flaws in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Denial of Forced Resignation (Handwritten Resignation Letter · Receipt of Consolation Money)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Coverage (Fewer Than Five Regular Employees)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks Made by Telephone)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (written statements · workplace conflict), violation of company policy · 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Coverage (Fewer Than Five Regular Employees),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (written statements · workplace conflict) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Written Statements · Workplace Conflict).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
