Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Concurrent Position at a University)” (Unfair Dismissal 337)
- Date2026/04/01 04:13
- Read 180
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (concurrent position at a university).”
Adjudicating body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae270 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
February 26, 2026 · Case outcome: All claims upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Article 10-3(1) of the Act on the Management of Local Government-Invested and -Funded Institutions provides that officers and employees of such institutions may not engage in profit-making work outside their official duties, and may only concurrently hold non-profit positions with the permission of the head of the institution. In this case, however, the employee concurrently served at the University of Ulsan, performing student education, research, academic affairs, and additional tasks assigned by the head of the department, and …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee of a local government-invested and -funded institution who was subjected to disciplinary action on the ground that he had concurrently engaged in activities at the University of Ulsan, including student education, research, and academic affairs. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (discipline), and the Commission rendered a decision.
The Commission found that the concurrent position itself constituted grounds for discipline, but focused its deliberation on whether the disciplinary measure of one month’s suspension from duty was excessively severe. Based on the decision of the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, this article explains the legal principles governing unfair dismissal and the determination of the level of disciplinary measures, linking them to the practical approach of the Labor Relations Commission, and also summarizes the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether imposing a one-month suspension from duty on an employee who violated the restrictions on concurrent positions applicable to local government-invested and -funded institutions is so excessive, in terms of the level of discipline, as to constitute unfair dismissal (unfair discipline), even if the grounds for discipline themselves are recognized.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employee had in fact performed student education, research, academic affairs, and tasks additionally assigned by the head of the department at the University of Ulsan, and therefore had violated the restrictions on concurrent positions under Article 10-3(1) of the Act on the Management of Local Government-Invested and -Funded Institutions. On this basis, it held that grounds for discipline existed.
However, considering the specific circumstances at the time the grounds for discipline arose, the nature and degree of the measures taken by the company in relation to the matter, and fairness in comparison with the level of discipline imposed in similar cases, the Commission determined that a one-month suspension from duty was a markedly severe sanction by social standards and that the level of discipline was excessive. Although it found no particular circumstances in the disciplinary process that would warrant a finding of illegality in the procedure itself, it recognized the unfairness of the measure on the ground that the employer had exceeded the bounds of its discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held to be unfair on the ground that, notwithstanding the existence of grounds for discipline and compliance with procedural requirements, the disciplinary measure of a one-month suspension from duty was excessively severe.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, concurrent positions may be permitted if they are not for a “profit-making purpose” or if permission has been obtained from the head of the institution. However, in the case of local government-invested and -funded institutions, separate statutory restrictions on concurrent positions apply, and employees must therefore obtain prior permission and check the internal rules in advance.
Even if a violation of the rules on concurrent positions is acknowledged, if the level of discipline is excessive by social standards in light of the nature of the duties, the degree of the misconduct, and existing disciplinary practice, employees should bear in mind that they may challenge the appropriateness of the disciplinary measure by filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the relevant laws and regulations governing invested and funded institutions, as well as in the rules of employment and personnel regulations, the standards and procedures for permitting or prohibiting concurrent positions, and to establish a document management system that can prove whether prior permission was granted.
In addition, when determining the level of discipline, employers should, in line with the standards presented by the Supreme Court and the Labor Relations Commission, comprehensively consider the nature and degree of the misconduct, the characteristics of the duties, the level of discipline imposed in similar cases, and the employee’s prior record, and exercise their discretion within a range that would not be assessed as manifestly unreasonable by social standards.
To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to have a sufficient prior understanding of the legal principles governing unfair dismissal and the determination of disciplinary measures, and to have the capability to systematically organize and prove the facts in a manner consistent with those legal principles.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Pursuant to Article 10-3(1) of the Act on the Management of Local Government-Invested and -Funded Institutions, officers and employees of such institutions may not engage in work for profit outside their official duties, and may only concurrently hold non-profit positions with the permission of the head of the institution. In this case, the employee in fact concurrently engaged in activities at the University of Ulsan, performing student education, research, academic affairs, and additional tasks assigned by the head of the department to which he belonged. Accordingly, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
In light of the circumstances at the time the grounds for discipline arose and the measures taken by the company in relation to the matter, the disciplinary measure of a one-month suspension from duty is deemed excessive in terms of the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There appear to be no particular circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Pursuant to Article 10-3(1) of the Act on the Management of Local Government-Invested and -Funded Institutions, officers and employees of such institutions may not engage in work for profit outside their official duties, and may only concurrently hold non-profit positions with the permission of the head of the institution. In this case, the employee in fact concurrently engaged in activities at the University of Ulsan, performing student education, research, academic affairs, and additional tasks assigned by the head of the department to which he belonged. Accordingly, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
In light of the circumstances at the time the grounds for discipline arose and the measures taken by the company in relation to the matter, the disciplinary measure of a one-month suspension from duty is deemed excessive in terms of the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There appear to be no particular circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (concurrent position at a university), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Requirements for Application of the Law (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (concurrent position at a university) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Concurrent Position at a University).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (concurrent position at a university).”
Adjudicating body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae270 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
February 26, 2026 · Case outcome: All claims upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Article 10-3(1) of the Act on the Management of Local Government-Invested and -Funded Institutions provides that officers and employees of such institutions may not engage in profit-making work outside their official duties, and may only concurrently hold non-profit positions with the permission of the head of the institution. In this case, however, the employee concurrently served at the University of Ulsan, performing student education, research, academic affairs, and additional tasks assigned by the head of the department, and …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee of a local government-invested and -funded institution who was subjected to disciplinary action on the ground that he had concurrently engaged in activities at the University of Ulsan, including student education, research, and academic affairs. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (discipline), and the Commission rendered a decision.
The Commission found that the concurrent position itself constituted grounds for discipline, but focused its deliberation on whether the disciplinary measure of one month’s suspension from duty was excessively severe. Based on the decision of the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, this article explains the legal principles governing unfair dismissal and the determination of the level of disciplinary measures, linking them to the practical approach of the Labor Relations Commission, and also summarizes the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether imposing a one-month suspension from duty on an employee who violated the restrictions on concurrent positions applicable to local government-invested and -funded institutions is so excessive, in terms of the level of discipline, as to constitute unfair dismissal (unfair discipline), even if the grounds for discipline themselves are recognized.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employee had in fact performed student education, research, academic affairs, and tasks additionally assigned by the head of the department at the University of Ulsan, and therefore had violated the restrictions on concurrent positions under Article 10-3(1) of the Act on the Management of Local Government-Invested and -Funded Institutions. On this basis, it held that grounds for discipline existed.
However, considering the specific circumstances at the time the grounds for discipline arose, the nature and degree of the measures taken by the company in relation to the matter, and fairness in comparison with the level of discipline imposed in similar cases, the Commission determined that a one-month suspension from duty was a markedly severe sanction by social standards and that the level of discipline was excessive. Although it found no particular circumstances in the disciplinary process that would warrant a finding of illegality in the procedure itself, it recognized the unfairness of the measure on the ground that the employer had exceeded the bounds of its discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held to be unfair on the ground that, notwithstanding the existence of grounds for discipline and compliance with procedural requirements, the disciplinary measure of a one-month suspension from duty was excessively severe.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, concurrent positions may be permitted if they are not for a “profit-making purpose” or if permission has been obtained from the head of the institution. However, in the case of local government-invested and -funded institutions, separate statutory restrictions on concurrent positions apply, and employees must therefore obtain prior permission and check the internal rules in advance.
Even if a violation of the rules on concurrent positions is acknowledged, if the level of discipline is excessive by social standards in light of the nature of the duties, the degree of the misconduct, and existing disciplinary practice, employees should bear in mind that they may challenge the appropriateness of the disciplinary measure by filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the relevant laws and regulations governing invested and funded institutions, as well as in the rules of employment and personnel regulations, the standards and procedures for permitting or prohibiting concurrent positions, and to establish a document management system that can prove whether prior permission was granted.
In addition, when determining the level of discipline, employers should, in line with the standards presented by the Supreme Court and the Labor Relations Commission, comprehensively consider the nature and degree of the misconduct, the characteristics of the duties, the level of discipline imposed in similar cases, and the employee’s prior record, and exercise their discretion within a range that would not be assessed as manifestly unreasonable by social standards.
To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to have a sufficient prior understanding of the legal principles governing unfair dismissal and the determination of disciplinary measures, and to have the capability to systematically organize and prove the facts in a manner consistent with those legal principles.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Pursuant to Article 10-3(1) of the Act on the Management of Local Government-Invested and -Funded Institutions, officers and employees of such institutions may not engage in work for profit outside their official duties, and may only concurrently hold non-profit positions with the permission of the head of the institution. In this case, the employee in fact concurrently engaged in activities at the University of Ulsan, performing student education, research, academic affairs, and additional tasks assigned by the head of the department to which he belonged. Accordingly, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
In light of the circumstances at the time the grounds for discipline arose and the measures taken by the company in relation to the matter, the disciplinary measure of a one-month suspension from duty is deemed excessive in terms of the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There appear to be no particular circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Pursuant to Article 10-3(1) of the Act on the Management of Local Government-Invested and -Funded Institutions, officers and employees of such institutions may not engage in work for profit outside their official duties, and may only concurrently hold non-profit positions with the permission of the head of the institution. In this case, the employee in fact concurrently engaged in activities at the University of Ulsan, performing student education, research, academic affairs, and additional tasks assigned by the head of the department to which he belonged. Accordingly, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
In light of the circumstances at the time the grounds for discipline arose and the measures taken by the company in relation to the matter, the disciplinary measure of a one-month suspension from duty is deemed excessive in terms of the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There appear to be no particular circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (concurrent position at a university), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Requirements for Application of the Law (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (concurrent position at a university) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Concurrent Position at a University).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
