Corporate trends / Performance record
Non-Recognition of Disciplinary Grounds (Disclosure of Disciplinary Action Against Academy Instructor · Parent Complaint) – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 391)
- Date2026/04/21 04:14
- Read 165
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “non-recognition of disciplinary grounds (disclosure of disciplinary action against an academy instructor · parent complaint).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1134 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case Result: All Claims Upheld
Summary of Key Issue: Based solely on the materials submitted by the parties, the employer’s alleged grounds for discipline—“disclosure of the fact of discipline” and “parent complaints (emotional abuse of students) causing disruption to the normal operation of the academy”—were not objectively proven, and therefore no disciplinary grounds existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an instructor employed at a private academy received a three‑month pay reduction as a disciplinary measure and then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the discipline was unfair. The Commission examined the existence of the disciplinary grounds and the legitimacy of the disciplinary action based on the materials submitted by the parties. This case provided ample room to apply legal principles accumulated in similar cases by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is: “Where an employee is given a three‑month pay reduction on the grounds of ‘disclosure of the fact of discipline’ and ‘causing disruption to the operation of the academy due to parent complaints (emotional abuse of students),’ is the disciplinary action still legitimate when those grounds have not been objectively proven?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that there was no objective evidence as to whom, with what content, and through what channel the alleged disclosure of the disciplinary facts—asserted by the employer as a disciplinary ground—was made; that, with respect to the parent complaints, there was a lack of materials detailing the specific content, timing, and circumstances of the complaints, and what kind of disruption to the normal operation of the academy they allegedly caused; and that, where the disciplinary grounds themselves are not recognized, the disciplinary action cannot stand, making it unnecessary to examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the legality of the disciplinary procedures.
Accordingly, the Commission held that this disciplinary disposition was unfair, as it was imposed in the absence of any underlying disciplinary grounds.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, if the employer’s alleged disciplinary grounds are abstract or differ from the facts, it is important to secure as much evidence as possible that can substantiate the actual circumstances at the time—such as text messages, messenger records, audio recordings, and details of conversations with parents. In occupations where parent complaints and issues of emotional abuse frequently arise—such as academies, daycare centers, and schools—it is particularly important, at the Labor Relations Commission stage, to calmly contest what specific complaints actually occurred, whether those complaints were related to one’s own conduct, and how the employer verified them.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, even though the right to impose discipline is broadly recognized, the specific facts constituting the disciplinary grounds must be supported by objective evidence in order for the legitimacy of the discipline to be upheld by the Labor Relations Commission. It is necessary to systematically organize relevant materials such as parent complaints, internal reports, counseling records, and CCTV footage, and to clearly link the disciplinary grounds to the relevant provisions of the personnel regulations and rules of employment. Where more severe personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals are being considered, even more rigorous fact‑finding and record‑keeping are required.
To prevail in this type of case, it is important to work with a firm like Labor Law Firm Law&, which has a substantial body of prior decisions and legal principles regarding unfair dismissal and disciplinary cases, and which has the capability to meticulously identify and organize the facts in a manner consistent with those legal principles.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Based solely on the materials submitted by the parties, the employer’s alleged grounds for discipline—“disclosure of the fact of discipline” and “acts such as causing parent complaints (emotional abuse of students) that disrupted the normal operation of the academy”—were not objectively proven, and therefore no disciplinary grounds existed. Accordingly, the employer’s three‑month pay reduction was unfair without any need to examine the proportionality of the disciplinary measure or the procedural aspects.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Based solely on the materials submitted by the parties, the employer’s alleged grounds for discipline—“disclosure of the fact of discipline” and “acts such as causing parent complaints (emotional abuse of students) that disrupted the normal operation of the academy”—were not objectively proven, and therefore no disciplinary grounds existed. Accordingly, the employer’s three‑month pay reduction was unfair without any need to examine the proportionality of the disciplinary measure or the procedural aspects.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Eligibility as Subject of Discipline (Failure to Submit Industrial Accident Investigation Form)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Reasonableness of Refusal to Renew (Abuse and Neglect of Persons with Severe Disabilities)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non‑recognition of disciplinary grounds (disclosure of disciplinary action against academy instructor · parent complaint), disciplinary dismissal, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Eligibility as Subject of Discipline (Failure to Submit Industrial Accident Investigation Form)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non‑recognition of disciplinary grounds (disclosure of disciplinary action against academy instructor · parent complaint) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Non‑Recognition of Disciplinary Grounds (Disclosure of Disciplinary Action Against Academy Instructor · Parent Complaint).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “non-recognition of disciplinary grounds (disclosure of disciplinary action against an academy instructor · parent complaint).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1134 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case Result: All Claims Upheld
Summary of Key Issue: Based solely on the materials submitted by the parties, the employer’s alleged grounds for discipline—“disclosure of the fact of discipline” and “parent complaints (emotional abuse of students) causing disruption to the normal operation of the academy”—were not objectively proven, and therefore no disciplinary grounds existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an instructor employed at a private academy received a three‑month pay reduction as a disciplinary measure and then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the discipline was unfair. The Commission examined the existence of the disciplinary grounds and the legitimacy of the disciplinary action based on the materials submitted by the parties. This case provided ample room to apply legal principles accumulated in similar cases by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is: “Where an employee is given a three‑month pay reduction on the grounds of ‘disclosure of the fact of discipline’ and ‘causing disruption to the operation of the academy due to parent complaints (emotional abuse of students),’ is the disciplinary action still legitimate when those grounds have not been objectively proven?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that there was no objective evidence as to whom, with what content, and through what channel the alleged disclosure of the disciplinary facts—asserted by the employer as a disciplinary ground—was made; that, with respect to the parent complaints, there was a lack of materials detailing the specific content, timing, and circumstances of the complaints, and what kind of disruption to the normal operation of the academy they allegedly caused; and that, where the disciplinary grounds themselves are not recognized, the disciplinary action cannot stand, making it unnecessary to examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the legality of the disciplinary procedures.
Accordingly, the Commission held that this disciplinary disposition was unfair, as it was imposed in the absence of any underlying disciplinary grounds.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, if the employer’s alleged disciplinary grounds are abstract or differ from the facts, it is important to secure as much evidence as possible that can substantiate the actual circumstances at the time—such as text messages, messenger records, audio recordings, and details of conversations with parents. In occupations where parent complaints and issues of emotional abuse frequently arise—such as academies, daycare centers, and schools—it is particularly important, at the Labor Relations Commission stage, to calmly contest what specific complaints actually occurred, whether those complaints were related to one’s own conduct, and how the employer verified them.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, even though the right to impose discipline is broadly recognized, the specific facts constituting the disciplinary grounds must be supported by objective evidence in order for the legitimacy of the discipline to be upheld by the Labor Relations Commission. It is necessary to systematically organize relevant materials such as parent complaints, internal reports, counseling records, and CCTV footage, and to clearly link the disciplinary grounds to the relevant provisions of the personnel regulations and rules of employment. Where more severe personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals are being considered, even more rigorous fact‑finding and record‑keeping are required.
To prevail in this type of case, it is important to work with a firm like Labor Law Firm Law&, which has a substantial body of prior decisions and legal principles regarding unfair dismissal and disciplinary cases, and which has the capability to meticulously identify and organize the facts in a manner consistent with those legal principles.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Based solely on the materials submitted by the parties, the employer’s alleged grounds for discipline—“disclosure of the fact of discipline” and “acts such as causing parent complaints (emotional abuse of students) that disrupted the normal operation of the academy”—were not objectively proven, and therefore no disciplinary grounds existed. Accordingly, the employer’s three‑month pay reduction was unfair without any need to examine the proportionality of the disciplinary measure or the procedural aspects.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Based solely on the materials submitted by the parties, the employer’s alleged grounds for discipline—“disclosure of the fact of discipline” and “acts such as causing parent complaints (emotional abuse of students) that disrupted the normal operation of the academy”—were not objectively proven, and therefore no disciplinary grounds existed. Accordingly, the employer’s three‑month pay reduction was unfair without any need to examine the proportionality of the disciplinary measure or the procedural aspects.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Eligibility as Subject of Discipline (Failure to Submit Industrial Accident Investigation Form)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Reasonableness of Refusal to Renew (Abuse and Neglect of Persons with Severe Disabilities)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non‑recognition of disciplinary grounds (disclosure of disciplinary action against academy instructor · parent complaint), disciplinary dismissal, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Eligibility as Subject of Discipline (Failure to Submit Industrial Accident Investigation Form)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non‑recognition of disciplinary grounds (disclosure of disciplinary action against academy instructor · parent complaint) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Non‑Recognition of Disciplinary Grounds (Disclosure of Disciplinary Action Against Academy Instructor · Parent Complaint).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
