Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Oriental Clinic Orders, Chuna Therapy, Eating During Working Hours)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 332)
- Date2026/03/31 04:04
- Read 181
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (Oriental clinic orders, chuna therapy, eating during working hours).”
Adjudicating Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025UnfairDismissal9248 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.27 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: It is difficult to find that there existed grounds for disciplinary action such as the employee’s repeated incompetence in handling order-related tasks, failure to perform chuna therapy despite patients’ requests, and engaging in non-work activities such as eating meals and receiving IV treatment during working hours. Even if some of these acts were to be acknowledged, their degree is so minor that they cannot reasonably constitute grounds for disciplinary action.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee working at an Oriental medical clinic who was dismissed for disciplinary reasons by the employer and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined both the existence of grounds for disciplinary action and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and on that basis determined whether the disciplinary dismissal was justified. In this article, focusing on this unfair dismissal decision, we organize the Commission’s reasoning structure and practical implications from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are whether “repeated incompetence in handling order-related tasks, failure to perform chuna therapy despite patients’ requests, and acts such as eating meals and receiving IV treatment during working hours can be recognized as grounds for disciplinary action, and whether a disciplinary dismissal carried out in the presence of procedural defects—such as deficiencies in the notice of the disciplinary committee meeting, investigation, and opportunity to explain—can be deemed justified.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found it difficult to conclude, based on objective evidence, that the employee’s handling of order-related tasks was repeatedly incompetent, that the employee failed to perform chuna therapy despite patients’ requests, or that the employee engaged in non-work activities such as eating meals and receiving IV treatment during working hours. Even assuming that some of these facts could be acknowledged, their degree was so minor that they could not reasonably be regarded as misconduct seriously undermining corporate order. Furthermore, when convening the disciplinary committee, the employer did not specifically identify the misconduct constituting the grounds for discipline, and no sufficient prior investigation was conducted. As a result, the employee was not afforded a genuine opportunity to explain and otherwise exercise the right of defense.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case lacked justification both in terms of the existence and severity of the grounds for disciplinary action, and that there were also serious procedural defects, rendering the dismissal unlawful and unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
In similar situations, employees should first calmly examine what specific facts the employer is asserting as grounds for disciplinary action and whether there is objective evidence supporting those assertions. It is also crucial, when later filing an application for remedy of unfair dismissal, to carefully record and preserve whether the notice convening the disciplinary committee specifically set out the alleged misconduct, whether an opportunity to explain was provided in advance, and whether the employee was able to fully present his or her position during the investigation process.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to comprehensively consider whether the disciplinary dismissal corresponds to a situation where “it is impossible to continue the employment relationship under social norms,” taking into account the nature, degree, and motive of the misconduct, as well as the employee’s past work attitude, when determining the level of discipline. In addition, unless the employer thoroughly ensures procedural fairness—by specifying concrete grounds for discipline in the notice of the disciplinary committee meeting, keeping records of prior investigations, and providing the employee with a genuine opportunity to explain—there is a high risk that the dismissal will be found to be unfair by the Labor Relations Commission, even if some misconduct is acknowledged.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
It is difficult to find that there existed grounds for disciplinary action such as the employee’s repeated incompetence in handling order-related tasks, failure to perform chuna therapy despite patients’ requests, and engaging in non-work activities such as eating meals and receiving IV treatment during working hours. Even if some of these acts were to be acknowledged, their degree is so minor that they cannot reasonably constitute grounds for disciplinary action. Furthermore, when convening the disciplinary committee, the employer did not specifically state the misconduct giving rise to the discipline, and it appears that no objective prior investigation into the grounds for discipline was conducted. Accordingly, it was determined that the employee was not sufficiently guaranteed a genuine opportunity to explain and otherwise exercise the right of defense, and that there were serious procedural defects, rendering the disciplinary action unlawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
It is difficult to find that there existed grounds for disciplinary action such as the employee’s repeated incompetence in handling order-related tasks, failure to perform chuna therapy despite patients’ requests, and engaging in non-work activities such as eating meals and receiving IV treatment during working hours. Even if some of these acts were to be acknowledged, their degree is so minor that they cannot reasonably constitute grounds for disciplinary action. Furthermore, when convening the disciplinary committee, the employer did not specifically state the misconduct giving rise to the discipline, and it appears that no objective prior investigation into the grounds for discipline was conducted. Accordingly, it was determined that the employee was not sufficiently guaranteed a genuine opportunity to explain and otherwise exercise the right of defense, and that there were serious procedural defects, rendering the disciplinary action unlawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - · Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - · Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (Oriental clinic orders, chuna therapy, eating during working hours), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Resignation · Termination by Agreement (Meeting Suggesting to Look for Another Job)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (Oriental clinic orders, chuna therapy, eating during working hours) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Oriental Clinic Orders, Chuna Therapy, Eating During Working Hours).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (Oriental clinic orders, chuna therapy, eating during working hours).”
Adjudicating Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025UnfairDismissal9248 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.27 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: It is difficult to find that there existed grounds for disciplinary action such as the employee’s repeated incompetence in handling order-related tasks, failure to perform chuna therapy despite patients’ requests, and engaging in non-work activities such as eating meals and receiving IV treatment during working hours. Even if some of these acts were to be acknowledged, their degree is so minor that they cannot reasonably constitute grounds for disciplinary action.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee working at an Oriental medical clinic who was dismissed for disciplinary reasons by the employer and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined both the existence of grounds for disciplinary action and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and on that basis determined whether the disciplinary dismissal was justified. In this article, focusing on this unfair dismissal decision, we organize the Commission’s reasoning structure and practical implications from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are whether “repeated incompetence in handling order-related tasks, failure to perform chuna therapy despite patients’ requests, and acts such as eating meals and receiving IV treatment during working hours can be recognized as grounds for disciplinary action, and whether a disciplinary dismissal carried out in the presence of procedural defects—such as deficiencies in the notice of the disciplinary committee meeting, investigation, and opportunity to explain—can be deemed justified.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found it difficult to conclude, based on objective evidence, that the employee’s handling of order-related tasks was repeatedly incompetent, that the employee failed to perform chuna therapy despite patients’ requests, or that the employee engaged in non-work activities such as eating meals and receiving IV treatment during working hours. Even assuming that some of these facts could be acknowledged, their degree was so minor that they could not reasonably be regarded as misconduct seriously undermining corporate order. Furthermore, when convening the disciplinary committee, the employer did not specifically identify the misconduct constituting the grounds for discipline, and no sufficient prior investigation was conducted. As a result, the employee was not afforded a genuine opportunity to explain and otherwise exercise the right of defense.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case lacked justification both in terms of the existence and severity of the grounds for disciplinary action, and that there were also serious procedural defects, rendering the dismissal unlawful and unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
In similar situations, employees should first calmly examine what specific facts the employer is asserting as grounds for disciplinary action and whether there is objective evidence supporting those assertions. It is also crucial, when later filing an application for remedy of unfair dismissal, to carefully record and preserve whether the notice convening the disciplinary committee specifically set out the alleged misconduct, whether an opportunity to explain was provided in advance, and whether the employee was able to fully present his or her position during the investigation process.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to comprehensively consider whether the disciplinary dismissal corresponds to a situation where “it is impossible to continue the employment relationship under social norms,” taking into account the nature, degree, and motive of the misconduct, as well as the employee’s past work attitude, when determining the level of discipline. In addition, unless the employer thoroughly ensures procedural fairness—by specifying concrete grounds for discipline in the notice of the disciplinary committee meeting, keeping records of prior investigations, and providing the employee with a genuine opportunity to explain—there is a high risk that the dismissal will be found to be unfair by the Labor Relations Commission, even if some misconduct is acknowledged.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
It is difficult to find that there existed grounds for disciplinary action such as the employee’s repeated incompetence in handling order-related tasks, failure to perform chuna therapy despite patients’ requests, and engaging in non-work activities such as eating meals and receiving IV treatment during working hours. Even if some of these acts were to be acknowledged, their degree is so minor that they cannot reasonably constitute grounds for disciplinary action. Furthermore, when convening the disciplinary committee, the employer did not specifically state the misconduct giving rise to the discipline, and it appears that no objective prior investigation into the grounds for discipline was conducted. Accordingly, it was determined that the employee was not sufficiently guaranteed a genuine opportunity to explain and otherwise exercise the right of defense, and that there were serious procedural defects, rendering the disciplinary action unlawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
It is difficult to find that there existed grounds for disciplinary action such as the employee’s repeated incompetence in handling order-related tasks, failure to perform chuna therapy despite patients’ requests, and engaging in non-work activities such as eating meals and receiving IV treatment during working hours. Even if some of these acts were to be acknowledged, their degree is so minor that they cannot reasonably constitute grounds for disciplinary action. Furthermore, when convening the disciplinary committee, the employer did not specifically state the misconduct giving rise to the discipline, and it appears that no objective prior investigation into the grounds for discipline was conducted. Accordingly, it was determined that the employee was not sufficiently guaranteed a genuine opportunity to explain and otherwise exercise the right of defense, and that there were serious procedural defects, rendering the disciplinary action unlawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - · Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - · Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (Oriental clinic orders, chuna therapy, eating during working hours), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Resignation · Termination by Agreement (Meeting Suggesting to Look for Another Job)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (Oriental clinic orders, chuna therapy, eating during working hours) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Oriental Clinic Orders, Chuna Therapy, Eating During Working Hours).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
