Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Failure to Register Break Time)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 393)
- Date2026/04/22 04:08
- Read 157
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (failure to register break time).”
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision that concluded with a full win for the employee on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (failure to register break time).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10011 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Outcome: Fully upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s failure to register break time in the system falls under the disciplinary grounds stipulated in the Rules of Employment and the Reward and Disciplinary Rules, and is therefore recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The total time during which the employee failed to register break time and was away from the workplace amounted to 53 hours and 48 minutes over approximately 10 months. In light of other disciplinary cases at the employer’s workplace, it is difficult to view this as so serious as to warrant suspension from duty. Although the employee did attend to personal matters and was absent from the workplace during working hours, it does not appear that the employee maliciously made false entries regarding break time in order to receive additional allowances. …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee received a suspension from duty from the employer on the ground that the employee failed to register break time in the computer system while on duty. The employee then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline itself, but focused its review on whether the level of discipline was so excessively severe, in light of social norms, as to be unjust.
Through this case, we will look, together with the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, at the point that in unfair dismissal disputes, even where some grounds for discipline are recognized, a remedy may still be granted if the level of discipline is excessive.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where there is misconduct in the form of failure to register break time and leaving the workplace, whether, in light of the degree and circumstances of such misconduct and fairness compared to other disciplinary cases, the disciplinary measure of suspension from duty is so clearly lacking in reasonableness according to social norms that it constitutes unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employee’s failure to register break time and leaving the workplace constituted grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment and the Reward and Disciplinary Rules; that although the total unregistered/away time reached 53 hours and 48 minutes over about 10 months, it was difficult, when compared with other disciplinary cases at the same workplace, to regard this as so serious as to warrant suspension; that while the employee did leave the workplace for personal matters during working hours, it did not appear that the employee maliciously made false entries regarding break time in order to receive additional allowances; and that even taking into account the employee’s prior disciplinary record in 2022, the degree and nature of the violation were not so serious as to justify suspension from duty.
Accordingly, the panel held that, although there were grounds for discipline, the level of discipline in this dismissal was excessive and therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that repeated violations of rules concerning break time, leaving the workplace, and attendance may be recognized as grounds for discipline. However, if the employee systematically organizes and explains to the Labor Relations Commission the specific duration and frequency of the conduct, whether it interfered with work, whether there was any malicious intent to gain an advantage, and any prior disciplinary history—i.e., the factors relevant to determining the level of discipline—there is ample room to argue that the level of discipline is excessive in light of social norms.
In addition, if, compared to similar disciplinary cases within the company, there is a clear lack of fairness, presenting evidence of that fact (such as prior disciplinary notices and the actual practice of applying HR rules) can be an important point in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
An employer may discipline employees for attendance violations such as failure to register break time or unauthorized absence from the workplace. However, when imposing severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal or suspension from duty, the employer should comprehensively consider the duration, frequency, and total time of the misconduct, whether there were work disruptions or damages, the presence of malicious intent, prior disciplinary history, and the existing level of discipline imposed on other employees, and should determine the level of discipline within a range acceptable under social norms.
In particular, it is necessary to apply consistent disciplinary standards within the workplace for the same type of violation and to organize the HR and disciplinary system so that, in any subsequent review by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts, the employer can explain that there was no abuse of discretion by keeping specific records of the grounds for discipline and the level of disciplinary measures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s failure to register break time in the system falls under the disciplinary grounds stipulated in the Rules of Employment and the Reward and Disciplinary Rules, and is therefore recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The total time during which the employee failed to register break time and was away from the workplace amounted to 53 hours and 48 minutes over approximately 10 months. In light of other disciplinary cases at the employer’s workplace, it is difficult to view this as so serious as to warrant suspension from duty. Although it is true that the employee attended to personal matters or was away from the workplace during working hours, considering that it does not appear that the employee maliciously made false entries regarding break time in order to receive additional allowances, and even taking into account the employee’s prior disciplinary disposition in 2022, it is difficult to regard the degree and nature of the violation as so serious as to justify suspension from duty. The level of discipline is therefore deemed excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
There were no defects in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s failure to register break time in the system falls under the disciplinary grounds stipulated in the Rules of Employment and the Reward and Disciplinary Rules, and is therefore recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The total time during which the employee failed to register break time and was away from the workplace amounted to 53 hours and 48 minutes over approximately 10 months. In light of other disciplinary cases at the employer’s workplace, it is difficult to view this as so serious as to warrant suspension from duty. Although it is true that the employee attended to personal matters or was away from the workplace during working hours, considering that it does not appear that the employee maliciously made false entries regarding break time in order to receive additional allowances, and even taking into account the employee’s prior disciplinary disposition in 2022, it is difficult to regard the degree and nature of the violation as so serious as to justify suspension from duty. The level of discipline is therefore deemed excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
There were no defects in the disciplinary procedure.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Existence of Dismissal (Recorded Interview Concerning Assault Incident)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (failure to register break time), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Existence of Dismissal (Recorded Interview Concerning Assault Incident),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to excessive disciplinary measure (failure to register break time) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Relating to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Failure to Register Break Time).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision that concluded with a full win for the employee on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (failure to register break time).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10011 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Outcome: Fully upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s failure to register break time in the system falls under the disciplinary grounds stipulated in the Rules of Employment and the Reward and Disciplinary Rules, and is therefore recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The total time during which the employee failed to register break time and was away from the workplace amounted to 53 hours and 48 minutes over approximately 10 months. In light of other disciplinary cases at the employer’s workplace, it is difficult to view this as so serious as to warrant suspension from duty. Although the employee did attend to personal matters and was absent from the workplace during working hours, it does not appear that the employee maliciously made false entries regarding break time in order to receive additional allowances. …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee received a suspension from duty from the employer on the ground that the employee failed to register break time in the computer system while on duty. The employee then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline itself, but focused its review on whether the level of discipline was so excessively severe, in light of social norms, as to be unjust.
Through this case, we will look, together with the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, at the point that in unfair dismissal disputes, even where some grounds for discipline are recognized, a remedy may still be granted if the level of discipline is excessive.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where there is misconduct in the form of failure to register break time and leaving the workplace, whether, in light of the degree and circumstances of such misconduct and fairness compared to other disciplinary cases, the disciplinary measure of suspension from duty is so clearly lacking in reasonableness according to social norms that it constitutes unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employee’s failure to register break time and leaving the workplace constituted grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment and the Reward and Disciplinary Rules; that although the total unregistered/away time reached 53 hours and 48 minutes over about 10 months, it was difficult, when compared with other disciplinary cases at the same workplace, to regard this as so serious as to warrant suspension; that while the employee did leave the workplace for personal matters during working hours, it did not appear that the employee maliciously made false entries regarding break time in order to receive additional allowances; and that even taking into account the employee’s prior disciplinary record in 2022, the degree and nature of the violation were not so serious as to justify suspension from duty.
Accordingly, the panel held that, although there were grounds for discipline, the level of discipline in this dismissal was excessive and therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that repeated violations of rules concerning break time, leaving the workplace, and attendance may be recognized as grounds for discipline. However, if the employee systematically organizes and explains to the Labor Relations Commission the specific duration and frequency of the conduct, whether it interfered with work, whether there was any malicious intent to gain an advantage, and any prior disciplinary history—i.e., the factors relevant to determining the level of discipline—there is ample room to argue that the level of discipline is excessive in light of social norms.
In addition, if, compared to similar disciplinary cases within the company, there is a clear lack of fairness, presenting evidence of that fact (such as prior disciplinary notices and the actual practice of applying HR rules) can be an important point in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
An employer may discipline employees for attendance violations such as failure to register break time or unauthorized absence from the workplace. However, when imposing severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal or suspension from duty, the employer should comprehensively consider the duration, frequency, and total time of the misconduct, whether there were work disruptions or damages, the presence of malicious intent, prior disciplinary history, and the existing level of discipline imposed on other employees, and should determine the level of discipline within a range acceptable under social norms.
In particular, it is necessary to apply consistent disciplinary standards within the workplace for the same type of violation and to organize the HR and disciplinary system so that, in any subsequent review by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts, the employer can explain that there was no abuse of discretion by keeping specific records of the grounds for discipline and the level of disciplinary measures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s failure to register break time in the system falls under the disciplinary grounds stipulated in the Rules of Employment and the Reward and Disciplinary Rules, and is therefore recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The total time during which the employee failed to register break time and was away from the workplace amounted to 53 hours and 48 minutes over approximately 10 months. In light of other disciplinary cases at the employer’s workplace, it is difficult to view this as so serious as to warrant suspension from duty. Although it is true that the employee attended to personal matters or was away from the workplace during working hours, considering that it does not appear that the employee maliciously made false entries regarding break time in order to receive additional allowances, and even taking into account the employee’s prior disciplinary disposition in 2022, it is difficult to regard the degree and nature of the violation as so serious as to justify suspension from duty. The level of discipline is therefore deemed excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
There were no defects in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s failure to register break time in the system falls under the disciplinary grounds stipulated in the Rules of Employment and the Reward and Disciplinary Rules, and is therefore recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The total time during which the employee failed to register break time and was away from the workplace amounted to 53 hours and 48 minutes over approximately 10 months. In light of other disciplinary cases at the employer’s workplace, it is difficult to view this as so serious as to warrant suspension from duty. Although it is true that the employee attended to personal matters or was away from the workplace during working hours, considering that it does not appear that the employee maliciously made false entries regarding break time in order to receive additional allowances, and even taking into account the employee’s prior disciplinary disposition in 2022, it is difficult to regard the degree and nature of the violation as so serious as to justify suspension from duty. The level of discipline is therefore deemed excessive.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
There were no defects in the disciplinary procedure.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Existence of Dismissal (Recorded Interview Concerning Assault Incident)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (failure to register break time), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Existence of Dismissal (Recorded Interview Concerning Assault Incident),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to excessive disciplinary measure (failure to register break time) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Relating to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Failure to Register Break Time).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
