Corporate trends / Performance record
“Disciplinary Relevance (Obstruction of Bus Traffic)” Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 382)
- Date2026/04/18 04:13
- Read 174
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary relevance (obstruction of bus traffic).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10083 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose when an employee, having received a “caution” from the company following complaints by a bus driver and passengers, regarded that measure as an unfair disciplinary action and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for remedies including unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, first, whether this “caution” measure, which adversely affected the employee’s performance evaluation, constituted a remedial object subject to review, and second, whether its grounds, severity (quantum), and procedure were justified.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether a “caution” measure, which is not classified as a disciplinary action under the employer’s personnel regulations, falls within “other disciplinary measures” that are subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. under the Labor Standards Act, and whether the caution imposed for obstructing bus traffic and arguing with the bus driver was justified in terms of its grounds, severity, and procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, although a “caution” under the employer’s personnel regulations does not formally constitute a disciplinary action, it is clearly a disadvantageous disposition that adversely affects the employee’s performance evaluation. In light of the purport of case law and commentary that interpret “other disciplinary measures” in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act as including disadvantageous measures imposed as sanctions, in addition to dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, and wage reduction,
the panel held that the “caution” imposed on the employee is also subject to review by the Labor Relations Commission as an object of a remedial order.
With respect to the legitimacy of the caution imposed on the employee, the panel considered that: (i) not only the bus driver but also passengers filed complaints about the employee’s conduct; (ii) the fact that the employee actually obstructed the bus’s passage and argued with the driver was confirmed through the contents of the complaints and photographic evidence; (iii) the employer initially imposed a more severe reprimand, but in the reconsideration procedure mitigated it by two levels to a relatively light caution; and (iv) the employer provided procedural safeguards by conducting an interview with the employee before the reprimand and affording additional opportunities for explanation during the reconsideration process.
Accordingly, as there was no dismissal disposition in this case, and it was difficult to find that the “caution” at issue was manifestly unreasonable in terms of its grounds, severity, or procedure, the panel determined that the measure was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to recognize that even seemingly minor measures such as a “caution” or “warning” under personnel regulations may serve as disadvantageous factors in future performance evaluations, promotions, or transfers, and thus may themselves be subject to applications for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission. However, where there is misconduct that can be objectively verified—such as obstruction of bus traffic or arguments—and the employer has followed procedures such as mitigating the severity through reconsideration and providing opportunities to explain, it will be difficult to have the measure found unfair merely on the basis that “the disposition is unsatisfactory.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to operate on the premise that even measures such as a “caution,” which are not expressly designated as disciplinary actions in personnel regulations, may fall within “other disciplinary measures” under the Labor Standards Act and thus be subject to review by the Labor Relations Commission if they function as sanction-type measures that adversely affect an employee’s evaluation. In particular, in this case, the employer’s victory rested on key grounds such as securing objective evidence (e.g., identity of complainants, on-site photographs), adjusting the severity through reconsideration after the initial discipline, and ensuring procedural fairness by providing interviews and opportunities to explain. Employers should therefore systematically refine their personnel and disciplinary processes.
Labor Law Firm Law& emphasizes that, in unfair dismissal, redundancy dismissal, and disciplinary cases of this kind, it is crucial to review in advance the Labor Relations Commission’s analytical framework for “disciplinary relevance” and “justification (grounds, severity, procedure)” in order to prevent disputes, or, where disputes arise, to design a favorable evidentiary structure.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the measure is subject to a remedial order
Although a caution does not constitute a disciplinary action under the personnel regulations, it clearly has an adverse impact on the employee’s performance evaluation and is therefore subject to a remedial order.
(b) Whether the caution was justified (grounds, severity, procedure)
① The bus driver and passengers filed complaints against the employee;
② The fact that the employee obstructed the bus’s passage and argued with the bus driver is confirmed through the contents of the complaints and photographic evidence;
③ Because the complainants included not only the bus driver but also passengers, it was necessary to prompt the employee to reflect, so the employer initially imposed a reprimand and, upon reconsideration, mitigated it by two levels to a caution;
④ The employer conducted an interview with the employee before imposing the reprimand and provided an opportunity to explain during the reconsideration, making it difficult to find any procedural defect.
In light of the above, it is difficult to regard the caution as unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the measure is subject to a remedial order
Although a caution does not constitute a disciplinary action under the personnel regulations, it clearly has an adverse impact on the employee’s performance evaluation and is therefore subject to a remedial order.
(b) Whether the caution was justified (grounds, severity, procedure)
① The bus driver and passengers filed complaints against the employee;
② The fact that the employee obstructed the bus’s passage and argued with the bus driver is confirmed through the contents of the complaints and photographic evidence;
③ Because the complainants included not only the bus driver but also passengers, it was necessary to prompt the employee to reflect, so the employer initially imposed a reprimand and, upon reconsideration, mitigated it by two levels to a caution;
④ The employer conducted an interview with the employee before imposing the reprimand and provided an opportunity to explain during the reconsideration, making it difficult to find any procedural defect.
In light of the above, it is difficult to regard the caution as unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Removal from Office ex Officio (Driver’s License Revocation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary relevance (obstruction of bus traffic), 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “‘Removal from Office ex Officio (Driver’s License Revocation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary relevance (obstruction of bus traffic) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Relevance (Obstruction of Bus Traffic).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary relevance (obstruction of bus traffic).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10083 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose when an employee, having received a “caution” from the company following complaints by a bus driver and passengers, regarded that measure as an unfair disciplinary action and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for remedies including unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, first, whether this “caution” measure, which adversely affected the employee’s performance evaluation, constituted a remedial object subject to review, and second, whether its grounds, severity (quantum), and procedure were justified.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether a “caution” measure, which is not classified as a disciplinary action under the employer’s personnel regulations, falls within “other disciplinary measures” that are subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. under the Labor Standards Act, and whether the caution imposed for obstructing bus traffic and arguing with the bus driver was justified in terms of its grounds, severity, and procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, although a “caution” under the employer’s personnel regulations does not formally constitute a disciplinary action, it is clearly a disadvantageous disposition that adversely affects the employee’s performance evaluation. In light of the purport of case law and commentary that interpret “other disciplinary measures” in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act as including disadvantageous measures imposed as sanctions, in addition to dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, and wage reduction,
the panel held that the “caution” imposed on the employee is also subject to review by the Labor Relations Commission as an object of a remedial order.
With respect to the legitimacy of the caution imposed on the employee, the panel considered that: (i) not only the bus driver but also passengers filed complaints about the employee’s conduct; (ii) the fact that the employee actually obstructed the bus’s passage and argued with the driver was confirmed through the contents of the complaints and photographic evidence; (iii) the employer initially imposed a more severe reprimand, but in the reconsideration procedure mitigated it by two levels to a relatively light caution; and (iv) the employer provided procedural safeguards by conducting an interview with the employee before the reprimand and affording additional opportunities for explanation during the reconsideration process.
Accordingly, as there was no dismissal disposition in this case, and it was difficult to find that the “caution” at issue was manifestly unreasonable in terms of its grounds, severity, or procedure, the panel determined that the measure was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to recognize that even seemingly minor measures such as a “caution” or “warning” under personnel regulations may serve as disadvantageous factors in future performance evaluations, promotions, or transfers, and thus may themselves be subject to applications for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission. However, where there is misconduct that can be objectively verified—such as obstruction of bus traffic or arguments—and the employer has followed procedures such as mitigating the severity through reconsideration and providing opportunities to explain, it will be difficult to have the measure found unfair merely on the basis that “the disposition is unsatisfactory.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to operate on the premise that even measures such as a “caution,” which are not expressly designated as disciplinary actions in personnel regulations, may fall within “other disciplinary measures” under the Labor Standards Act and thus be subject to review by the Labor Relations Commission if they function as sanction-type measures that adversely affect an employee’s evaluation. In particular, in this case, the employer’s victory rested on key grounds such as securing objective evidence (e.g., identity of complainants, on-site photographs), adjusting the severity through reconsideration after the initial discipline, and ensuring procedural fairness by providing interviews and opportunities to explain. Employers should therefore systematically refine their personnel and disciplinary processes.
Labor Law Firm Law& emphasizes that, in unfair dismissal, redundancy dismissal, and disciplinary cases of this kind, it is crucial to review in advance the Labor Relations Commission’s analytical framework for “disciplinary relevance” and “justification (grounds, severity, procedure)” in order to prevent disputes, or, where disputes arise, to design a favorable evidentiary structure.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the measure is subject to a remedial order
Although a caution does not constitute a disciplinary action under the personnel regulations, it clearly has an adverse impact on the employee’s performance evaluation and is therefore subject to a remedial order.
(b) Whether the caution was justified (grounds, severity, procedure)
① The bus driver and passengers filed complaints against the employee;
② The fact that the employee obstructed the bus’s passage and argued with the bus driver is confirmed through the contents of the complaints and photographic evidence;
③ Because the complainants included not only the bus driver but also passengers, it was necessary to prompt the employee to reflect, so the employer initially imposed a reprimand and, upon reconsideration, mitigated it by two levels to a caution;
④ The employer conducted an interview with the employee before imposing the reprimand and provided an opportunity to explain during the reconsideration, making it difficult to find any procedural defect.
In light of the above, it is difficult to regard the caution as unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the measure is subject to a remedial order
Although a caution does not constitute a disciplinary action under the personnel regulations, it clearly has an adverse impact on the employee’s performance evaluation and is therefore subject to a remedial order.
(b) Whether the caution was justified (grounds, severity, procedure)
① The bus driver and passengers filed complaints against the employee;
② The fact that the employee obstructed the bus’s passage and argued with the bus driver is confirmed through the contents of the complaints and photographic evidence;
③ Because the complainants included not only the bus driver but also passengers, it was necessary to prompt the employee to reflect, so the employer initially imposed a reprimand and, upon reconsideration, mitigated it by two levels to a caution;
④ The employer conducted an interview with the employee before imposing the reprimand and provided an opportunity to explain during the reconsideration, making it difficult to find any procedural defect.
In light of the above, it is difficult to regard the caution as unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Removal from Office ex Officio (Driver’s License Revocation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary relevance (obstruction of bus traffic), 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “‘Removal from Office ex Officio (Driver’s License Revocation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary relevance (obstruction of bus traffic) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Relevance (Obstruction of Bus Traffic).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
