Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Drunk Driving)” (Unfair Dismissal 373)
- Date2026/04/14 04:14
- Read 171
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (repeated drunk driving).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025Buhae1152 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.13 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Given that it was confirmed the employee drove a vehicle while intoxicated, and that drunk driving is a criminal offense punishable under the Road Traffic Act and subject to strong social condemnation, the employee’s misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline even though the act occurred in the employee’s private sphere.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was dismissed for driving a vehicle while intoxicated outside working hours. The employee claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission assessed the legitimacy of the dismissal by comprehensively considering the employee’s prior disciplinary record related to drinking, the repetitive nature of the misconduct as a second drunk driving offense, and the progress of the disciplinary procedures.
As in many drunk-driving disciplinary and redundancy cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the central issue was the extent to which misconduct occurring in the employee’s private life can constitute grounds for discipline.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “Whether an employee’s drunk driving committed in the private sphere can be recognized as grounds for discipline, and whether, in circumstances where the employee has a prior disciplinary record related to drinking, dismissal as a disciplinary measure constitutes an excessively harsh and socially unacceptable unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel noted that drunk driving is a criminal offense punishable under the Road Traffic Act and an act subject to very strong social condemnation; that the same type of misconduct was repeated despite the employee’s prior disciplinary sanctions for drunk driving and drinking-related service violations; and that the employer conducted the disciplinary procedure pursuant to its internal regulations on the management of office staff while fully guaranteeing the employee’s right to defense.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was based on valid grounds for discipline and that the level of discipline (dismissal) could not be deemed to have clearly lost its reasonableness under social norms, and therefore did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that even conduct occurring in “private life outside working hours,” such as drunk driving, which is subject to criminal punishment and strong social condemnation, can directly affect the company’s trust and image and thus constitute grounds for discipline. In particular, where there is a prior disciplinary history related to drinking, a recurrence of the same type of misconduct will aggravate the disciplinary severity, and a repeated violation may justify dismissal. Employees should be especially cautious in this regard.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and personnel regulations that criminal acts in the private sphere, such as drunk driving, constitute grounds for discipline when they damage the company’s social reputation or disrupt workplace order. At the stage of determining the level of discipline, employers should comprehensively consider whether the misconduct is repeated, the employee’s prior disciplinary record, the public nature of the company’s business, and consistency with similar cases. In addition, by thoroughly ensuring procedural fairness—such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing the employee with an opportunity to explain—employers will find it easier to have the legitimacy of the disciplinary action upheld at the Labor Relations Commission stage.
In this type of case, seeking advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review in advance the lawfulness of the grounds for discipline, the proportionality of the disciplinary severity, and compliance with procedures can be of great assistance in preventing disputes and mounting a defense.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Progress of Procedures
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was confirmed that the employee drove a vehicle while intoxicated, and given that drunk driving is a criminal offense punishable under the Road Traffic Act and an act subject to strong social condemnation, the employee’s misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline even though the act occurred in the employee’s private sphere.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering that the employee had a prior record of drunk driving and again committed drunk driving, thereby repeating the same type of misconduct, and that the employee had previously been subject to disciplinary action for service-related problems associated with drinking, the degree of misconduct cannot be regarded as minor. Accordingly, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is justified.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee did not raise any specific arguments regarding the unlawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. The employer conducted the disciplinary procedures based on its office staff management regulations and sufficiently guaranteed the employee’s right to defense in the process. Therefore, there is no procedural defect that would invalidate the effectiveness of the disciplinary action.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was confirmed that the employee drove a vehicle while intoxicated, and given that drunk driving is a criminal offense punishable under the Road Traffic Act and an act subject to strong social condemnation, the employee’s misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline even though the act occurred in the employee’s private sphere.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering that the employee had a prior record of drunk driving and again committed drunk driving, thereby repeating the same type of misconduct, and that the employee had previously been subject to disciplinary action for service-related problems associated with drinking, the degree of misconduct cannot be regarded as minor. Accordingly, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is justified.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee did not raise any specific arguments regarding the unlawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. The employer conducted the disciplinary procedures based on its office staff management regulations and sufficiently guaranteed the employee’s right to defense in the process. Therefore, there is no procedural defect that would invalidate the effectiveness of the disciplinary action. /
[More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Existence of Grounds for Discipline (Work Order · Negligence of Duty · Employee Discord)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal During Probation (Full Recording of Colleague · Police Report)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (repeated drunk driving), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Precedents” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Existence of Grounds for Discipline (Work Order · Negligence of Duty · Employee Discord)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (repeated drunk driving) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Drunk Driving).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (repeated drunk driving).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025Buhae1152 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.13 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Given that it was confirmed the employee drove a vehicle while intoxicated, and that drunk driving is a criminal offense punishable under the Road Traffic Act and subject to strong social condemnation, the employee’s misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline even though the act occurred in the employee’s private sphere.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was dismissed for driving a vehicle while intoxicated outside working hours. The employee claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission assessed the legitimacy of the dismissal by comprehensively considering the employee’s prior disciplinary record related to drinking, the repetitive nature of the misconduct as a second drunk driving offense, and the progress of the disciplinary procedures.
As in many drunk-driving disciplinary and redundancy cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the central issue was the extent to which misconduct occurring in the employee’s private life can constitute grounds for discipline.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “Whether an employee’s drunk driving committed in the private sphere can be recognized as grounds for discipline, and whether, in circumstances where the employee has a prior disciplinary record related to drinking, dismissal as a disciplinary measure constitutes an excessively harsh and socially unacceptable unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel noted that drunk driving is a criminal offense punishable under the Road Traffic Act and an act subject to very strong social condemnation; that the same type of misconduct was repeated despite the employee’s prior disciplinary sanctions for drunk driving and drinking-related service violations; and that the employer conducted the disciplinary procedure pursuant to its internal regulations on the management of office staff while fully guaranteeing the employee’s right to defense.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was based on valid grounds for discipline and that the level of discipline (dismissal) could not be deemed to have clearly lost its reasonableness under social norms, and therefore did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that even conduct occurring in “private life outside working hours,” such as drunk driving, which is subject to criminal punishment and strong social condemnation, can directly affect the company’s trust and image and thus constitute grounds for discipline. In particular, where there is a prior disciplinary history related to drinking, a recurrence of the same type of misconduct will aggravate the disciplinary severity, and a repeated violation may justify dismissal. Employees should be especially cautious in this regard.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and personnel regulations that criminal acts in the private sphere, such as drunk driving, constitute grounds for discipline when they damage the company’s social reputation or disrupt workplace order. At the stage of determining the level of discipline, employers should comprehensively consider whether the misconduct is repeated, the employee’s prior disciplinary record, the public nature of the company’s business, and consistency with similar cases. In addition, by thoroughly ensuring procedural fairness—such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing the employee with an opportunity to explain—employers will find it easier to have the legitimacy of the disciplinary action upheld at the Labor Relations Commission stage.
In this type of case, seeking advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review in advance the lawfulness of the grounds for discipline, the proportionality of the disciplinary severity, and compliance with procedures can be of great assistance in preventing disputes and mounting a defense.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Progress of Procedures
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was confirmed that the employee drove a vehicle while intoxicated, and given that drunk driving is a criminal offense punishable under the Road Traffic Act and an act subject to strong social condemnation, the employee’s misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline even though the act occurred in the employee’s private sphere.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering that the employee had a prior record of drunk driving and again committed drunk driving, thereby repeating the same type of misconduct, and that the employee had previously been subject to disciplinary action for service-related problems associated with drinking, the degree of misconduct cannot be regarded as minor. Accordingly, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is justified.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee did not raise any specific arguments regarding the unlawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. The employer conducted the disciplinary procedures based on its office staff management regulations and sufficiently guaranteed the employee’s right to defense in the process. Therefore, there is no procedural defect that would invalidate the effectiveness of the disciplinary action.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was confirmed that the employee drove a vehicle while intoxicated, and given that drunk driving is a criminal offense punishable under the Road Traffic Act and an act subject to strong social condemnation, the employee’s misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline even though the act occurred in the employee’s private sphere.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering that the employee had a prior record of drunk driving and again committed drunk driving, thereby repeating the same type of misconduct, and that the employee had previously been subject to disciplinary action for service-related problems associated with drinking, the degree of misconduct cannot be regarded as minor. Accordingly, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is justified.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee did not raise any specific arguments regarding the unlawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. The employer conducted the disciplinary procedures based on its office staff management regulations and sufficiently guaranteed the employee’s right to defense in the process. Therefore, there is no procedural defect that would invalidate the effectiveness of the disciplinary action. /
[More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Existence of Grounds for Discipline (Work Order · Negligence of Duty · Employee Discord)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal During Probation (Full Recording of Colleague · Police Report)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (repeated drunk driving), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Precedents” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Existence of Grounds for Discipline (Work Order · Negligence of Duty · Employee Discord)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (repeated drunk driving) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Drunk Driving).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
