Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Work Instructions · Negligence of Duty · Employee Discord)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 372)
- Date2026/04/14 04:09
- Read 177
This case concerns a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (work instructions · negligence of duty · employee discord).”
Adjudicating Body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9116 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.19 · Result: All claims upheld
Key issues in summary: (i) Based solely on the contents of the work instruction sheets submitted by the employer, it is difficult to conclude that the employee failed to comply with legitimate work orders; (ii) with respect to alleged negligence of duty, it is unclear whether the conduct at issue constituted sleeping during working hours or resting during break time; (iii) regarding employee discord and verbal abuse, there is a lack of objective evidence supporting the allegations; (iv) it is difficult to rule out the possibility that the entries made by the manager on the work instruction sheets were merely ex post evaluations or unilateral assertions; (v) …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on the employee on the grounds of non-compliance with work instructions, negligence of duty, and discord and verbal abuse among employees. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission closely examined whether grounds for disciplinary action existed, focusing on the credibility of the evidence submitted—such as work instruction sheets, petitions, and written statements—and on whether the employee had been afforded an opportunity to explain during the disciplinary process.
The key issue in this case was:
“Whether, based solely on the work instruction sheets, petitions, and written statements presented by the employer, the employee’s violation of work instructions, negligence of duty, and employee discord can be regarded as existing grounds for disciplinary action sufficient to justify disciplinary dismissal.”
The panel in this case found that, based only on the contents of the work instruction sheets submitted by the employer, it was difficult to objectively verify whether the instructions constituted legitimate work orders and whether the employee in fact failed to comply with them; that it was not clearly distinguishable whether the conduct alleged as negligence of duty was sleeping during working hours or resting during permitted break time; that there was a lack of objective evidence to support the allegations of employee discord and verbal abuse; and that it was difficult to rule out the possibility that the manager’s entries on the work instruction sheets were merely ex post evaluations or unilateral assertions.
In addition, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the employee had been given a substantive opportunity, at each point in time, to explain and rebut each ground for disciplinary action, and that the petitions and written statements were merely conflicting unilateral assertions and thus insufficient as objective evidence. Taking all of this into account, the panel held that the alleged grounds for disciplinary action in this case did not exist.
Accordingly, the panel determined that the dismissal at issue constituted unfair dismissal because the grounds for disciplinary action themselves were not established, without any need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were:
“Whether, based solely on materials submitted by the employer—such as work instruction sheets, petitions, and written statements—the employee’s violation of work instructions, negligence of duty, employee discord, and verbal abuse can be objectively recognized as grounds for disciplinary action, and whether such grounds were proven to a degree sufficient to justify what would otherwise be an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission emphasized the following points:
First, based solely on the contents recorded in the work instruction sheets, it was not sufficiently proven that the instructions constituted legitimate work orders consistent with the employment contract and work rules, or that the employee refused to comply with them without just cause.
Second, with respect to the conduct alleged as negligence of duty, it was not distinguishable whether the conduct actually constituted sleeping during working hours or resting during permitted break time, making it difficult to definitively characterize it as negligence of duty.
Third, regarding employee discord and verbal abuse, there was a lack of objective evidence, and the petitions and written statements were merely conflicting unilateral assertions with low credibility.
Furthermore, the Commission considered that it was difficult to rule out the possibility that the manager’s entries on the work instruction sheets were ex post evaluations or unilateral assertions, and that it was difficult to conclude that the employee had been afforded immediate and substantive opportunities to explain and rebut each alleged ground for disciplinary action at the time it arose. On this basis, the Commission found that the grounds for disciplinary action themselves did not exist.
Accordingly, as no “just cause” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act was recognized, the Commission held that there was no need to examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or any defects in the disciplinary procedures, and determined that the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to understand that grounds for disciplinary action are not automatically established merely because the employer presents work instruction sheets or written statements. The objectivity, specificity, and legitimacy of their contents are strictly reviewed by the Labor Relations Commission.
In situations where violation of work instructions or negligence of duty may become an issue, it is important to preserve records of the circumstances at the time—such as working hours versus break times, the contents of the instructions, and how you responded—by means of notes, emails, or messenger messages, and to prepare in advance materials and statements that can support a factual narrative different from the employer’s assertions.
In addition, if, in the course of interviews or investigations related to discipline, you were not given sufficient opportunity to explain, or if discipline was imposed based solely on unilateral statements, such procedural problems can also serve as important grounds for asserting unfair dismissal. You should therefore keep a record of the relevant dates and times, participants, and the substance of conversations.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when considering disciplinary dismissal on grounds such as poor work performance or attitude, violation of work instructions, or employee discord and verbal abuse, it must be borne in mind that grounds for disciplinary action are difficult to prove based solely on simple work instruction sheets or unilateral statements.
You should secure materials that can objectively verify the specific date and time, place, content, persons involved, and the impact on the company of each incident (such as attendance records, CCTV footage, emails or messenger messages, audio recordings, etc.), and organize the statements of those involved after cross-checking any conflicting parts.
Furthermore, it is necessary to establish procedures whereby, whenever each ground for disciplinary action arises, the facts are immediately notified to the employee, sufficient opportunities for explanation and rebuttal are provided in writing or in person, and the contents and process are recorded. Without such preparation, there is a high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will deny the very existence of grounds for disciplinary action and render a decision of unfair dismissal.
This type of decision illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, the core issues are “the existence of grounds for disciplinary action and their proof,” and that, unlike managerial dismissals such as redundancies, in disciplinary dismissals it is particularly important to have objective proof of each individual act of misconduct. By obtaining prior advice from a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and by organizing evidence management and procedural design in advance, many disputes at the Labor Relations Commission stage can be prevented.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) Based solely on the contents of the work instruction sheets submitted by the employer, it is difficult to conclude that the employee failed to comply with legitimate work orders; (2) with respect to alleged negligence of duty, it is unclear whether the conduct at issue constituted sleeping during working hours or resting during break time; (3) regarding employee discord and verbal abuse, there is a lack of objective evidence supporting the allegations; (4) it is difficult to rule out the possibility that the entries made by the manager on the work instruction sheets were merely ex post evaluations or unilateral assertions; (5) it is difficult to conclude that the employee was afforded substantive opportunities, at each point in time, to explain and rebut each alleged ground for disciplinary action; and (6) the petitions and written statements are merely conflicting unilateral assertions and thus insufficient as objective evidence. In light of these points, the grounds for disciplinary action in this case do not exist. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) Based solely on the contents of the work instruction sheets submitted by the employer, it is difficult to conclude that the employee failed to comply with legitimate work orders; (2) with respect to alleged negligence of duty, it is unclear whether the conduct at issue constituted sleeping during working hours or resting during break time; (3) regarding employee discord and verbal abuse, there is a lack of objective evidence supporting the allegations; (4) it is difficult to rule out the possibility that the entries made by the manager on the work instruction sheets were merely ex post evaluations or unilateral assertions; (5) it is difficult to conclude that the employee was afforded substantive opportunities, at each point in time, to explain and rebut each alleged ground for disciplinary action; and (6) the petitions and written statements are merely conflicting unilateral assertions and thus insufficient as objective evidence. In light of these points, the grounds for disciplinary action in this case do not exist. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Probationary Dismissal (Full Recording of Colleague · Report to Police)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (work instructions · negligence of duty · employee discord), 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 Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Probationary Dismissal (Full Recording of Colleague · Report to Police),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (work instructions · negligence of duty · employee discord) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Work Instructions · Negligence of Duty · Employee Discord).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Adjudicating Body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9116 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.19 · Result: All claims upheld
Key issues in summary: (i) Based solely on the contents of the work instruction sheets submitted by the employer, it is difficult to conclude that the employee failed to comply with legitimate work orders; (ii) with respect to alleged negligence of duty, it is unclear whether the conduct at issue constituted sleeping during working hours or resting during break time; (iii) regarding employee discord and verbal abuse, there is a lack of objective evidence supporting the allegations; (iv) it is difficult to rule out the possibility that the entries made by the manager on the work instruction sheets were merely ex post evaluations or unilateral assertions; (v) …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on the employee on the grounds of non-compliance with work instructions, negligence of duty, and discord and verbal abuse among employees. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission closely examined whether grounds for disciplinary action existed, focusing on the credibility of the evidence submitted—such as work instruction sheets, petitions, and written statements—and on whether the employee had been afforded an opportunity to explain during the disciplinary process.
The key issue in this case was:
“Whether, based solely on the work instruction sheets, petitions, and written statements presented by the employer, the employee’s violation of work instructions, negligence of duty, and employee discord can be regarded as existing grounds for disciplinary action sufficient to justify disciplinary dismissal.”
The panel in this case found that, based only on the contents of the work instruction sheets submitted by the employer, it was difficult to objectively verify whether the instructions constituted legitimate work orders and whether the employee in fact failed to comply with them; that it was not clearly distinguishable whether the conduct alleged as negligence of duty was sleeping during working hours or resting during permitted break time; that there was a lack of objective evidence to support the allegations of employee discord and verbal abuse; and that it was difficult to rule out the possibility that the manager’s entries on the work instruction sheets were merely ex post evaluations or unilateral assertions.
In addition, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the employee had been given a substantive opportunity, at each point in time, to explain and rebut each ground for disciplinary action, and that the petitions and written statements were merely conflicting unilateral assertions and thus insufficient as objective evidence. Taking all of this into account, the panel held that the alleged grounds for disciplinary action in this case did not exist.
Accordingly, the panel determined that the dismissal at issue constituted unfair dismissal because the grounds for disciplinary action themselves were not established, without any need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were:
“Whether, based solely on materials submitted by the employer—such as work instruction sheets, petitions, and written statements—the employee’s violation of work instructions, negligence of duty, employee discord, and verbal abuse can be objectively recognized as grounds for disciplinary action, and whether such grounds were proven to a degree sufficient to justify what would otherwise be an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission emphasized the following points:
First, based solely on the contents recorded in the work instruction sheets, it was not sufficiently proven that the instructions constituted legitimate work orders consistent with the employment contract and work rules, or that the employee refused to comply with them without just cause.
Second, with respect to the conduct alleged as negligence of duty, it was not distinguishable whether the conduct actually constituted sleeping during working hours or resting during permitted break time, making it difficult to definitively characterize it as negligence of duty.
Third, regarding employee discord and verbal abuse, there was a lack of objective evidence, and the petitions and written statements were merely conflicting unilateral assertions with low credibility.
Furthermore, the Commission considered that it was difficult to rule out the possibility that the manager’s entries on the work instruction sheets were ex post evaluations or unilateral assertions, and that it was difficult to conclude that the employee had been afforded immediate and substantive opportunities to explain and rebut each alleged ground for disciplinary action at the time it arose. On this basis, the Commission found that the grounds for disciplinary action themselves did not exist.
Accordingly, as no “just cause” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act was recognized, the Commission held that there was no need to examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or any defects in the disciplinary procedures, and determined that the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to understand that grounds for disciplinary action are not automatically established merely because the employer presents work instruction sheets or written statements. The objectivity, specificity, and legitimacy of their contents are strictly reviewed by the Labor Relations Commission.
In situations where violation of work instructions or negligence of duty may become an issue, it is important to preserve records of the circumstances at the time—such as working hours versus break times, the contents of the instructions, and how you responded—by means of notes, emails, or messenger messages, and to prepare in advance materials and statements that can support a factual narrative different from the employer’s assertions.
In addition, if, in the course of interviews or investigations related to discipline, you were not given sufficient opportunity to explain, or if discipline was imposed based solely on unilateral statements, such procedural problems can also serve as important grounds for asserting unfair dismissal. You should therefore keep a record of the relevant dates and times, participants, and the substance of conversations.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when considering disciplinary dismissal on grounds such as poor work performance or attitude, violation of work instructions, or employee discord and verbal abuse, it must be borne in mind that grounds for disciplinary action are difficult to prove based solely on simple work instruction sheets or unilateral statements.
You should secure materials that can objectively verify the specific date and time, place, content, persons involved, and the impact on the company of each incident (such as attendance records, CCTV footage, emails or messenger messages, audio recordings, etc.), and organize the statements of those involved after cross-checking any conflicting parts.
Furthermore, it is necessary to establish procedures whereby, whenever each ground for disciplinary action arises, the facts are immediately notified to the employee, sufficient opportunities for explanation and rebuttal are provided in writing or in person, and the contents and process are recorded. Without such preparation, there is a high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will deny the very existence of grounds for disciplinary action and render a decision of unfair dismissal.
This type of decision illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, the core issues are “the existence of grounds for disciplinary action and their proof,” and that, unlike managerial dismissals such as redundancies, in disciplinary dismissals it is particularly important to have objective proof of each individual act of misconduct. By obtaining prior advice from a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and by organizing evidence management and procedural design in advance, many disputes at the Labor Relations Commission stage can be prevented.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) Based solely on the contents of the work instruction sheets submitted by the employer, it is difficult to conclude that the employee failed to comply with legitimate work orders; (2) with respect to alleged negligence of duty, it is unclear whether the conduct at issue constituted sleeping during working hours or resting during break time; (3) regarding employee discord and verbal abuse, there is a lack of objective evidence supporting the allegations; (4) it is difficult to rule out the possibility that the entries made by the manager on the work instruction sheets were merely ex post evaluations or unilateral assertions; (5) it is difficult to conclude that the employee was afforded substantive opportunities, at each point in time, to explain and rebut each alleged ground for disciplinary action; and (6) the petitions and written statements are merely conflicting unilateral assertions and thus insufficient as objective evidence. In light of these points, the grounds for disciplinary action in this case do not exist. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) Based solely on the contents of the work instruction sheets submitted by the employer, it is difficult to conclude that the employee failed to comply with legitimate work orders; (2) with respect to alleged negligence of duty, it is unclear whether the conduct at issue constituted sleeping during working hours or resting during break time; (3) regarding employee discord and verbal abuse, there is a lack of objective evidence supporting the allegations; (4) it is difficult to rule out the possibility that the entries made by the manager on the work instruction sheets were merely ex post evaluations or unilateral assertions; (5) it is difficult to conclude that the employee was afforded substantive opportunities, at each point in time, to explain and rebut each alleged ground for disciplinary action; and (6) the petitions and written statements are merely conflicting unilateral assertions and thus insufficient as objective evidence. In light of these points, the grounds for disciplinary action in this case do not exist. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Probationary Dismissal (Full Recording of Colleague · Report to Police)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (work instructions · negligence of duty · employee discord), 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 Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Probationary Dismissal (Full Recording of Colleague · Report to Police),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (work instructions · negligence of duty · employee discord) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Work Instructions · Negligence of Duty · Employee Discord).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
