Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Eligibility as a Subject of Disciplinary Action (Non‑Submission of Industrial Accident Investigation Reports)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 390)
- Date2026/04/21 04:10
- Read 164
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision on the issue of “eligibility as a subject of disciplinary action (non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports),” in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed).
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “eligibility as a subject of disciplinary action (non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae259 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a claim for damages falls within the scope of remedies before the Labor Relations Commission
“The other disciplinary measures” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act refers to personnel sanctions unilaterally imposed by the employer on the employee on the basis of the employment contract relationship.
1. Legal Implications
This case is a decision in an unfair dismissal/disciplinary remedy application in which the Labor Relations Commission comprehensively addressed: (i) eligibility of a claim for damages as a subject of remedy, (ii) disciplinary grounds arising from violations of obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, (iii) the appropriateness of a three‑month wage reduction as a disciplinary measure, and (iv) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures.
At the Labor Relations Commission stage, the employee argued that both the wage reduction and the claim for damages were unjust. However, the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission generally sided with the employer. In this process, the disciplinary law principles that Labor Law Firm Law& has repeatedly emphasized in practice were reaffirmed.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employer, who operates a hospital, held the employee, who was responsible for safety and health affairs (industrial safety manager), accountable for failing to submit industrial accident investigation reports as required under the Occupational Safety and Health Act despite the occurrence of industrial accidents, and for failing to provide pre‑assignment safety and health training.
The employer filed a claim for damages against the employee and, separately, imposed a disciplinary sanction of a three‑month wage reduction. The employee regarded this as unfair dismissal, etc., and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were:
“① Whether the employer’s claim for damages constitutes ‘other disciplinary measures’ under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and thus falls within the scope of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. before the Labor Relations Commission;
② Whether the statute of limitations for disciplinary action had expired with respect to the repeated and continuous non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports;
③ Whether the imposition of a three‑month wage reduction on the safety and health manager constituted an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline; and
④ Whether the convening of the personnel committee and the rehearing procedures could be viewed as procedurally defective in terms of the disciplinary process.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found as follows: a claim for damages is not prescribed as a type of disciplinary measure under the personnel regulations, and there is no evidence that additional status‑related sanctions were contemplated in the event of non‑performance of such claim. Therefore, it does not fall under “other disciplinary measures” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act.
It further held that the non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports and the failure to conduct safety and health training were repeated and continuous acts committed in the course of performing the same duties, and that it was reasonable to calculate the disciplinary limitation period from the time of the final violation, so that expiration of the limitation period could not be recognized.
In light of the fact that the employee, as the person responsible for safety and health affairs, was in charge of tasks directly related to the performance of statutory obligations and that a substantial administrative fine was imposed on the hospital due to such violations, the three‑month wage reduction was a milder sanction than dismissal, removal, or suspension, and could not readily be viewed as an abuse or excess of discretionary power.
Moreover, both the initial and rehearing personnel committee proceedings were conducted in accordance with the personnel regulations, including issuance of an appearance request, provision of an opportunity to explain, deliberation, and resolution, and the rehearing could be conducted in writing pursuant to the regulations.
Accordingly, the Commission held that, contrary to the employee’s assertions, the disciplinary dismissal in this case could not easily be deemed unfair in terms of the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, or the procedures.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if an employee is faced with a claim for damages from the employer, if such claim is not defined as a type of disciplinary measure under the personnel regulations and no status‑related sanctions are contemplated in the event of non‑performance, it will be difficult to seek a remedy before the Labor Relations Commission on the ground of unfair dismissal, etc.
In addition, for violations such as the non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports that are repeated and continuous within the same scope of duties, the disciplinary limitation period may be calculated based on the time of the final violation. Therefore, employees should be aware that it may be difficult to obtain relief solely by arguing that “the incident occurred long ago and the limitation period has expired.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is helpful for dispute prevention to clearly distinguish, in the personnel regulations, between types of disciplinary measures and other civil claims, so that claims for damages are not confused with disciplinary actions.
It is also advisable to clearly define the duties of the person responsible for statutory obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act—such as submission of investigation reports and provision of pre‑assignment safety and health training—and the consequences of violations (e.g., administrative fines), and to specifically record the degree of responsibility and the company’s losses when determining the level of discipline. This will make it easier to demonstrate the legitimacy of disciplinary discretion before the Labor Relations Commission.
Furthermore, in conducting personnel committee and rehearing procedures, employers should strictly comply with the regulations regarding appearance requests, provision of an opportunity to explain, and the possibility of written review, in order to preclude arguments of procedural defects.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural Progress
A. Whether the claim for damages falls within the scope of remedies before the Labor Relations Commission
“The other disciplinary measures” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act refers to personnel sanctions unilaterally imposed by the employer on the employee on the basis of the employment contract relationship. A claim for damages is not prescribed as a type of disciplinary measure under the personnel regulations; rather, it constitutes the pursuit of civil liability based on the service regulations. There is also no evidence that additional status‑related sanctions were contemplated in the event of non‑performance of such claim.
B. Justifiability of the Grounds for Discipline
The Occupational Safety and Health Act clearly provides for the obligation to submit investigation reports upon the occurrence of industrial accidents and the obligation to conduct pre‑assignment safety and health training. In this case, investigation reports were not submitted for six industrial accidents that occurred between 2021 and 2022, and the employee, as the industrial safety manager at the time, was responsible for these tasks.
The employee argued that the three‑year disciplinary limitation period had expired with respect to four cases in 2021. However, the non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports can be viewed as repeated and continuous conduct in the course of performing the same duties, and it is reasonable to calculate the limitation period from the time of the final act. Therefore, the limitation period for disciplinary action cannot be considered to have expired, and the grounds for discipline objectively exist.
C. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The employee, as the person responsible for safety and health affairs, was in charge of tasks directly related to the performance of statutory obligations, and a substantial administrative fine was imposed on the hospital due to such violations. A three‑month wage reduction is a relatively mild disciplinary measure compared to dismissal, removal, or suspension, and the personnel committee appears to have mitigated the sanction in consideration of the employee’s merits. Accordingly, it is difficult to view the wage reduction in this case as an abuse or excess of discretionary power.
D. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The initial ordinary personnel committee followed the procedures of sending an appearance request, providing an opportunity to explain, and conducting deliberation and resolution. The special personnel committee for rehearing could be conducted in writing pursuant to Article 77 of the personnel regulations, and …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the claim for damages falls within the scope of remedies before the Labor Relations Commission
“The other disciplinary measures” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act refers to personnel sanctions unilaterally imposed by the employer on the employee on the basis of the employment contract relationship. A claim for damages is not prescribed as a type of disciplinary measure under the personnel regulations; rather, it constitutes the pursuit of civil liability based on the service regulations. There is also no evidence that additional status‑related sanctions were contemplated in the event of non‑performance of such claim.
B. Justifiability of the Grounds for Discipline
The Occupational Safety and Health Act clearly provides for the obligation to submit investigation reports upon the occurrence of industrial accidents and the obligation to conduct pre‑assignment safety and health training. In this case, investigation reports were not submitted for six industrial accidents that occurred between 2021 and 2022, and the employee, as the industrial safety manager at the time, was responsible for these tasks.
The employee argued that the three‑year disciplinary limitation period had expired with respect to four cases in 2021. However, the non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports can be viewed as repeated and continuous conduct in the course of performing the same duties, and it is reasonable to calculate the limitation period from the time of the final act. Therefore, the limitation period for disciplinary action cannot be considered to have expired, and the grounds for discipline objectively exist.
C. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The employee, as the person responsible for safety and health affairs, was in charge of tasks directly related to the performance of statutory obligations, and a substantial administrative fine was imposed on the hospital due to such violations. A three‑month wage reduction is a relatively mild disciplinary measure compared to dismissal, removal, or suspension, and the personnel committee appears to have mitigated the sanction in consideration of the employee’s merits. Accordingly, it is difficult to view the wage reduction in this case as an abuse or excess of discretionary power.
D. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The initial ordinary personnel committee followed the procedures of sending an appearance request, providing an opportunity to explain, and conducting deliberation and resolution. The special personnel committee for rehearing could be conducted in writing pursuant to Article 77 of the personnel regulations, and …
[Related Decisions]
- ‘Rationality of Refusal to Renew (Abuse/Neglect of Persons with Severe Disabilities at University Dormitory)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, eligibility as a subject of disciplinary action (non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Rationality of Refusal to Renew (Abuse/Neglect of Persons with Severe Disabilities at University Dormitory)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to eligibility as a subject of disciplinary action (non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Eligibility as a Subject of Disciplinary Action (Non‑Submission of Industrial Accident Investigation Reports).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “eligibility as a subject of disciplinary action (non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae259 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a claim for damages falls within the scope of remedies before the Labor Relations Commission
“The other disciplinary measures” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act refers to personnel sanctions unilaterally imposed by the employer on the employee on the basis of the employment contract relationship.
1. Legal Implications
This case is a decision in an unfair dismissal/disciplinary remedy application in which the Labor Relations Commission comprehensively addressed: (i) eligibility of a claim for damages as a subject of remedy, (ii) disciplinary grounds arising from violations of obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, (iii) the appropriateness of a three‑month wage reduction as a disciplinary measure, and (iv) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures.
At the Labor Relations Commission stage, the employee argued that both the wage reduction and the claim for damages were unjust. However, the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission generally sided with the employer. In this process, the disciplinary law principles that Labor Law Firm Law& has repeatedly emphasized in practice were reaffirmed.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employer, who operates a hospital, held the employee, who was responsible for safety and health affairs (industrial safety manager), accountable for failing to submit industrial accident investigation reports as required under the Occupational Safety and Health Act despite the occurrence of industrial accidents, and for failing to provide pre‑assignment safety and health training.
The employer filed a claim for damages against the employee and, separately, imposed a disciplinary sanction of a three‑month wage reduction. The employee regarded this as unfair dismissal, etc., and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were:
“① Whether the employer’s claim for damages constitutes ‘other disciplinary measures’ under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and thus falls within the scope of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. before the Labor Relations Commission;
② Whether the statute of limitations for disciplinary action had expired with respect to the repeated and continuous non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports;
③ Whether the imposition of a three‑month wage reduction on the safety and health manager constituted an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline; and
④ Whether the convening of the personnel committee and the rehearing procedures could be viewed as procedurally defective in terms of the disciplinary process.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found as follows: a claim for damages is not prescribed as a type of disciplinary measure under the personnel regulations, and there is no evidence that additional status‑related sanctions were contemplated in the event of non‑performance of such claim. Therefore, it does not fall under “other disciplinary measures” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act.
It further held that the non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports and the failure to conduct safety and health training were repeated and continuous acts committed in the course of performing the same duties, and that it was reasonable to calculate the disciplinary limitation period from the time of the final violation, so that expiration of the limitation period could not be recognized.
In light of the fact that the employee, as the person responsible for safety and health affairs, was in charge of tasks directly related to the performance of statutory obligations and that a substantial administrative fine was imposed on the hospital due to such violations, the three‑month wage reduction was a milder sanction than dismissal, removal, or suspension, and could not readily be viewed as an abuse or excess of discretionary power.
Moreover, both the initial and rehearing personnel committee proceedings were conducted in accordance with the personnel regulations, including issuance of an appearance request, provision of an opportunity to explain, deliberation, and resolution, and the rehearing could be conducted in writing pursuant to the regulations.
Accordingly, the Commission held that, contrary to the employee’s assertions, the disciplinary dismissal in this case could not easily be deemed unfair in terms of the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, or the procedures.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if an employee is faced with a claim for damages from the employer, if such claim is not defined as a type of disciplinary measure under the personnel regulations and no status‑related sanctions are contemplated in the event of non‑performance, it will be difficult to seek a remedy before the Labor Relations Commission on the ground of unfair dismissal, etc.
In addition, for violations such as the non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports that are repeated and continuous within the same scope of duties, the disciplinary limitation period may be calculated based on the time of the final violation. Therefore, employees should be aware that it may be difficult to obtain relief solely by arguing that “the incident occurred long ago and the limitation period has expired.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is helpful for dispute prevention to clearly distinguish, in the personnel regulations, between types of disciplinary measures and other civil claims, so that claims for damages are not confused with disciplinary actions.
It is also advisable to clearly define the duties of the person responsible for statutory obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act—such as submission of investigation reports and provision of pre‑assignment safety and health training—and the consequences of violations (e.g., administrative fines), and to specifically record the degree of responsibility and the company’s losses when determining the level of discipline. This will make it easier to demonstrate the legitimacy of disciplinary discretion before the Labor Relations Commission.
Furthermore, in conducting personnel committee and rehearing procedures, employers should strictly comply with the regulations regarding appearance requests, provision of an opportunity to explain, and the possibility of written review, in order to preclude arguments of procedural defects.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural Progress
A. Whether the claim for damages falls within the scope of remedies before the Labor Relations Commission
“The other disciplinary measures” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act refers to personnel sanctions unilaterally imposed by the employer on the employee on the basis of the employment contract relationship. A claim for damages is not prescribed as a type of disciplinary measure under the personnel regulations; rather, it constitutes the pursuit of civil liability based on the service regulations. There is also no evidence that additional status‑related sanctions were contemplated in the event of non‑performance of such claim.
B. Justifiability of the Grounds for Discipline
The Occupational Safety and Health Act clearly provides for the obligation to submit investigation reports upon the occurrence of industrial accidents and the obligation to conduct pre‑assignment safety and health training. In this case, investigation reports were not submitted for six industrial accidents that occurred between 2021 and 2022, and the employee, as the industrial safety manager at the time, was responsible for these tasks.
The employee argued that the three‑year disciplinary limitation period had expired with respect to four cases in 2021. However, the non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports can be viewed as repeated and continuous conduct in the course of performing the same duties, and it is reasonable to calculate the limitation period from the time of the final act. Therefore, the limitation period for disciplinary action cannot be considered to have expired, and the grounds for discipline objectively exist.
C. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The employee, as the person responsible for safety and health affairs, was in charge of tasks directly related to the performance of statutory obligations, and a substantial administrative fine was imposed on the hospital due to such violations. A three‑month wage reduction is a relatively mild disciplinary measure compared to dismissal, removal, or suspension, and the personnel committee appears to have mitigated the sanction in consideration of the employee’s merits. Accordingly, it is difficult to view the wage reduction in this case as an abuse or excess of discretionary power.
D. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The initial ordinary personnel committee followed the procedures of sending an appearance request, providing an opportunity to explain, and conducting deliberation and resolution. The special personnel committee for rehearing could be conducted in writing pursuant to Article 77 of the personnel regulations, and …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the claim for damages falls within the scope of remedies before the Labor Relations Commission
“The other disciplinary measures” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act refers to personnel sanctions unilaterally imposed by the employer on the employee on the basis of the employment contract relationship. A claim for damages is not prescribed as a type of disciplinary measure under the personnel regulations; rather, it constitutes the pursuit of civil liability based on the service regulations. There is also no evidence that additional status‑related sanctions were contemplated in the event of non‑performance of such claim.
B. Justifiability of the Grounds for Discipline
The Occupational Safety and Health Act clearly provides for the obligation to submit investigation reports upon the occurrence of industrial accidents and the obligation to conduct pre‑assignment safety and health training. In this case, investigation reports were not submitted for six industrial accidents that occurred between 2021 and 2022, and the employee, as the industrial safety manager at the time, was responsible for these tasks.
The employee argued that the three‑year disciplinary limitation period had expired with respect to four cases in 2021. However, the non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports can be viewed as repeated and continuous conduct in the course of performing the same duties, and it is reasonable to calculate the limitation period from the time of the final act. Therefore, the limitation period for disciplinary action cannot be considered to have expired, and the grounds for discipline objectively exist.
C. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The employee, as the person responsible for safety and health affairs, was in charge of tasks directly related to the performance of statutory obligations, and a substantial administrative fine was imposed on the hospital due to such violations. A three‑month wage reduction is a relatively mild disciplinary measure compared to dismissal, removal, or suspension, and the personnel committee appears to have mitigated the sanction in consideration of the employee’s merits. Accordingly, it is difficult to view the wage reduction in this case as an abuse or excess of discretionary power.
D. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The initial ordinary personnel committee followed the procedures of sending an appearance request, providing an opportunity to explain, and conducting deliberation and resolution. The special personnel committee for rehearing could be conducted in writing pursuant to Article 77 of the personnel regulations, and …
[Related Decisions]
- ‘Rationality of Refusal to Renew (Abuse/Neglect of Persons with Severe Disabilities at University Dormitory)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, eligibility as a subject of disciplinary action (non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Rationality of Refusal to Renew (Abuse/Neglect of Persons with Severe Disabilities at University Dormitory)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to eligibility as a subject of disciplinary action (non‑submission of industrial accident investigation reports) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Eligibility as a Subject of Disciplinary Action (Non‑Submission of Industrial Accident Investigation Reports).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
