Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Internet and Agency Sales)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 388)
- Date2026/04/20 04:12
- Read 170
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (internet and agency sales).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9244 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct—carrying out sales and concluding contracts through a third-party agency without direct contact with customers—violated Article 5 of the Sales Operation Guidelines, which prohibits “internet and agency sales,” violated Article 28-2 of the collective agreement concerning the Sales Operation Guidelines Committee established by labor‑management agreement to determine whether to impose discipline for internet sales (including agency sales), and violated Article 5-1 (duty of good faith) and … of the rules of employment, which require compliance with company regulations.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerned a sales employee who was disciplined for conducting internet sales through a third‑party agency without directly contacting customers. The Labor Relations Commission was asked to determine the legitimacy of the disciplinary action. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined whether there had been violations of the Sales Operation Guidelines, the collective agreement, and the rules of employment, and whether the demotion imposed as a disciplinary measure fell within a socially acceptable range of disciplinary severity, as well as whether the disciplinary procedures had been lawfully carried out.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, in circumstances where company rules prohibit “internet and agency sales,” the employee’s conduct in carrying out sales through an agency constitutes grounds for discipline, and whether the resulting demotion is justified in terms of disciplinary severity and procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel noted that the employee conducted sales and concluded contracts through a third‑party agency without direct contact with customers; that Article 5 of the Sales Operation Guidelines expressly prohibits “internet and agency sales”; that Article 28-2 of the collective agreement provides that whether to impose discipline for internet and agency sales is to be determined by a labor‑management body (the Sales Operation Guidelines Committee); and that the employee breached the duty of good faith and the duty to comply with company rules under the rules of employment.
On this basis, the panel found that the employee’s conduct fell within the grounds for discipline set out in the rules of employment and related regulations, and therefore that the grounds for discipline were justified.
In addition, taking into account the need to maintain order in the company’s sales operations, the nature of the misconduct and its potential impact on the company, and fairness in comparison with other employees, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the demotion as so clearly lacking in social acceptability as to constitute an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
Furthermore, in light of the fact that the employer convened a disciplinary committee pursuant to the rules of employment and the collective agreement, and conducted a rehearing following the employee’s application for reconsideration after the committee’s resolution, the panel found that the disciplinary procedures had also been lawfully observed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to check whether the Sales Operation Guidelines, collective agreement, and rules of employment contain provisions prohibiting specific sales methods such as “internet sales” or “agency sales.” Where the method of sales is directly linked to the company’s core sales order, the mere fact of violating such provisions may itself constitute grounds for discipline, and severe disciplinary measures such as demotion or suspension may be deemed socially justified.
When a disciplinary measure becomes the subject of dispute, it is important to examine not only whether there was in fact a violation of the rules, but also whether the level of discipline is excessive and whether the disciplinary procedures (convening of the disciplinary committee, opportunity to appear and present explanations, rehearing procedures, etc.) were properly followed in accordance with the rules of employment and the collective agreement.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly set out detailed guidelines relating to sales methods (e.g. prohibition of internet sales and agency sales) in the Sales Operation Guidelines, rules of employment, and collective agreement, and to establish in advance the standards for the level of discipline that may be imposed in the event of a violation. When imposing disciplinary measures, employers should, in line with the standards set out in Supreme Court precedents, comprehensively consider the nature and degree of the misconduct, its impact on corporate order, and fairness vis‑à‑vis other employees, and select a level of discipline that is not markedly excessive by social standards.
In addition, only by faithfully implementing the procedures set out in the collective agreement and rules of employment—such as the composition, convening, and resolution of the disciplinary committee, specific notification of the grounds for discipline, and provision of a rehearing procedure—can employers expect the legitimacy of their disciplinary actions to be upheld at the Labor Relations Commission stage. Accordingly, HR and labor‑relations personnel should regularly review disciplinary rules and actual practice together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct—carrying out sales and concluding contracts through a third‑party agency without direct contact with customers—violated Article 5 of the Sales Operation Guidelines, which prohibits “internet and agency sales”; violated Article 28-2 of the collective agreement concerning the Sales Operation Guidelines Committee, which was established by labor‑management agreement to determine whether to impose discipline for internet sales (including agency sales); and violated Article 5-1 (duty of good faith) and Article 12 (matters to be observed) of the rules of employment, which require compliance with company regulations. Accordingly, the conduct falls within the grounds for discipline set out in the rules of employment and related regulations, and the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline is recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Taking into comprehensive consideration the need to establish order in the company’s sales operations, the nature of the misconduct, and fairness in comparison with other employees, it is difficult to regard the demotion as so clearly lacking in social acceptability as to constitute a departure from or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employer convened a disciplinary committee pursuant to the rules of employment and the collective agreement, and, following the disciplinary committee’s resolution, conducted a rehearing upon the employee’s application for reconsideration. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures are deemed to have been lawfully observed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct—carrying out sales and concluding contracts through a third‑party agency without direct contact with customers—violated Article 5 of the Sales Operation Guidelines, which prohibits “internet and agency sales”; violated Article 28-2 of the collective agreement concerning the Sales Operation Guidelines Committee, which was established by labor‑management agreement to determine whether to impose discipline for internet sales (including agency sales); and violated Article 5-1 (duty of good faith) and Article 12 (matters to be observed) of the rules of employment, which require compliance with company regulations. Accordingly, the conduct falls within the grounds for discipline set out in the rules of employment and related regulations, and the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline is recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Taking into comprehensive consideration the need to establish order in the company’s sales operations, the nature of the misconduct, and fairness in comparison with other employees, it is difficult to regard the demotion as so clearly lacking in social acceptability as to constitute a departure from or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employer convened a disciplinary committee pursuant to the rules of employment and the collective agreement, and, following the disciplinary committee’s resolution, conducted a rehearing upon the employee’s application for reconsideration. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures are deemed to have been lawfully observed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure of Employment Offer to Materialize (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (De Facto Closure of Business)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (internet and agency sales), violation of company policy / failure to follow 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Recommended Resignation · Unemployment Benefit Inquiry)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (internet and agency sales) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Internet and Agency Sales).”
※ 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 severity (internet and agency sales).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9244 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct—carrying out sales and concluding contracts through a third-party agency without direct contact with customers—violated Article 5 of the Sales Operation Guidelines, which prohibits “internet and agency sales,” violated Article 28-2 of the collective agreement concerning the Sales Operation Guidelines Committee established by labor‑management agreement to determine whether to impose discipline for internet sales (including agency sales), and violated Article 5-1 (duty of good faith) and … of the rules of employment, which require compliance with company regulations.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerned a sales employee who was disciplined for conducting internet sales through a third‑party agency without directly contacting customers. The Labor Relations Commission was asked to determine the legitimacy of the disciplinary action. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined whether there had been violations of the Sales Operation Guidelines, the collective agreement, and the rules of employment, and whether the demotion imposed as a disciplinary measure fell within a socially acceptable range of disciplinary severity, as well as whether the disciplinary procedures had been lawfully carried out.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, in circumstances where company rules prohibit “internet and agency sales,” the employee’s conduct in carrying out sales through an agency constitutes grounds for discipline, and whether the resulting demotion is justified in terms of disciplinary severity and procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel noted that the employee conducted sales and concluded contracts through a third‑party agency without direct contact with customers; that Article 5 of the Sales Operation Guidelines expressly prohibits “internet and agency sales”; that Article 28-2 of the collective agreement provides that whether to impose discipline for internet and agency sales is to be determined by a labor‑management body (the Sales Operation Guidelines Committee); and that the employee breached the duty of good faith and the duty to comply with company rules under the rules of employment.
On this basis, the panel found that the employee’s conduct fell within the grounds for discipline set out in the rules of employment and related regulations, and therefore that the grounds for discipline were justified.
In addition, taking into account the need to maintain order in the company’s sales operations, the nature of the misconduct and its potential impact on the company, and fairness in comparison with other employees, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the demotion as so clearly lacking in social acceptability as to constitute an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
Furthermore, in light of the fact that the employer convened a disciplinary committee pursuant to the rules of employment and the collective agreement, and conducted a rehearing following the employee’s application for reconsideration after the committee’s resolution, the panel found that the disciplinary procedures had also been lawfully observed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to check whether the Sales Operation Guidelines, collective agreement, and rules of employment contain provisions prohibiting specific sales methods such as “internet sales” or “agency sales.” Where the method of sales is directly linked to the company’s core sales order, the mere fact of violating such provisions may itself constitute grounds for discipline, and severe disciplinary measures such as demotion or suspension may be deemed socially justified.
When a disciplinary measure becomes the subject of dispute, it is important to examine not only whether there was in fact a violation of the rules, but also whether the level of discipline is excessive and whether the disciplinary procedures (convening of the disciplinary committee, opportunity to appear and present explanations, rehearing procedures, etc.) were properly followed in accordance with the rules of employment and the collective agreement.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly set out detailed guidelines relating to sales methods (e.g. prohibition of internet sales and agency sales) in the Sales Operation Guidelines, rules of employment, and collective agreement, and to establish in advance the standards for the level of discipline that may be imposed in the event of a violation. When imposing disciplinary measures, employers should, in line with the standards set out in Supreme Court precedents, comprehensively consider the nature and degree of the misconduct, its impact on corporate order, and fairness vis‑à‑vis other employees, and select a level of discipline that is not markedly excessive by social standards.
In addition, only by faithfully implementing the procedures set out in the collective agreement and rules of employment—such as the composition, convening, and resolution of the disciplinary committee, specific notification of the grounds for discipline, and provision of a rehearing procedure—can employers expect the legitimacy of their disciplinary actions to be upheld at the Labor Relations Commission stage. Accordingly, HR and labor‑relations personnel should regularly review disciplinary rules and actual practice together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct—carrying out sales and concluding contracts through a third‑party agency without direct contact with customers—violated Article 5 of the Sales Operation Guidelines, which prohibits “internet and agency sales”; violated Article 28-2 of the collective agreement concerning the Sales Operation Guidelines Committee, which was established by labor‑management agreement to determine whether to impose discipline for internet sales (including agency sales); and violated Article 5-1 (duty of good faith) and Article 12 (matters to be observed) of the rules of employment, which require compliance with company regulations. Accordingly, the conduct falls within the grounds for discipline set out in the rules of employment and related regulations, and the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline is recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Taking into comprehensive consideration the need to establish order in the company’s sales operations, the nature of the misconduct, and fairness in comparison with other employees, it is difficult to regard the demotion as so clearly lacking in social acceptability as to constitute a departure from or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employer convened a disciplinary committee pursuant to the rules of employment and the collective agreement, and, following the disciplinary committee’s resolution, conducted a rehearing upon the employee’s application for reconsideration. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures are deemed to have been lawfully observed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct—carrying out sales and concluding contracts through a third‑party agency without direct contact with customers—violated Article 5 of the Sales Operation Guidelines, which prohibits “internet and agency sales”; violated Article 28-2 of the collective agreement concerning the Sales Operation Guidelines Committee, which was established by labor‑management agreement to determine whether to impose discipline for internet sales (including agency sales); and violated Article 5-1 (duty of good faith) and Article 12 (matters to be observed) of the rules of employment, which require compliance with company regulations. Accordingly, the conduct falls within the grounds for discipline set out in the rules of employment and related regulations, and the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline is recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Taking into comprehensive consideration the need to establish order in the company’s sales operations, the nature of the misconduct, and fairness in comparison with other employees, it is difficult to regard the demotion as so clearly lacking in social acceptability as to constitute a departure from or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employer convened a disciplinary committee pursuant to the rules of employment and the collective agreement, and, following the disciplinary committee’s resolution, conducted a rehearing upon the employee’s application for reconsideration. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures are deemed to have been lawfully observed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure of Employment Offer to Materialize (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (De Facto Closure of Business)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (internet and agency sales), violation of company policy / failure to follow 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Recommended Resignation · Unemployment Benefit Inquiry)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (internet and agency sales) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Internet and Agency Sales).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
