Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Violation of Work Orders (Refusal of On‑Call Duty and Holiday Work)” (Unfair Dismissal 397)
- Date2026/04/23 04:13
- Read 163
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “violation of work orders (refusal of on‑call duty and holiday work).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal 9110 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.12 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employees’ refusal, without just cause, to comply with lawful work orders and perform on‑call duty and holiday work constitutes a valid ground for disciplinary action.
1. Legal Implications
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, the key issue was the legitimacy of disciplinary action imposed where employees collectively refused orders to perform on‑call duty and holiday work. The Labor Relations Commission recognized the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ruled in favor of the employer. In doing so, it can be said that the legal principles on unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal that Labor Law Firm Law& has accumulated were fully reflected.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
Pursuant to its personnel regulations, the employer issued work orders directing employees to perform on‑call duty and holiday work. Some employees, without just cause, refused to comply with these orders and did not perform the assigned duties. The employer, through its Personnel Committee, imposed disciplinary sanctions of “one month suspension from duty.”
The employees filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline), arguing that there were no grounds for discipline, that even if grounds existed the level of discipline was excessive, and that there were procedural defects, such as failure to disclose the list of Personnel Committee members.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were whether the employer’s orders regarding on‑call duty and holiday work constituted legitimate work orders, whether refusal to comply with such orders constituted grounds for discipline, and further, whether the level of discipline (“one month suspension”) and the procedures followed could be recognized as legitimate by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employer’s instructions regarding on‑call duty and holiday work constituted legitimate work orders that did not conflict with the employment contracts, rules of employment, etc.; that it was clear that the employees did not comply with these orders and collectively refused them; and that no unavoidable circumstances were identified that would justify the employees’ failure to comply with the work orders.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the employees’ conduct constituted misconduct undermining work discipline and workplace order, and thus amounted to grounds for discipline.
In addition, under the disciplinary standards set forth in the personnel regulations, dismissal would have been permissible; however, the employer took into account as a mitigating factor that the employees immediately returned to work upon being ordered to do so and reduced the sanction to “one month suspension.” Considering also that the employees had no record of meritorious service that would warrant mitigation of discipline, the Commission found that the level of discipline could not be regarded as markedly excessive by social standards. It further found no procedural defects in the disciplinary process, on the grounds that there was no provision in the personnel regulations requiring disclosure of the list of Personnel Committee members when notifying employees of their attendance, that the employees already had access rights to the Qubis program in which the list of Personnel Committee members was registered, and that the employees had been afforded sufficient opportunity to make statements before the Personnel Committee.
Ultimately, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was justified in terms of grounds for discipline, level of discipline, and disciplinary procedures, and ruled that the employees’ applications for remedy for unfair dismissal should be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employees’ perspective, unless the employer’s orders regarding on‑call duty and holiday work clearly violate laws or collective agreements, or constitute “unjust orders” that infringe employees’ human rights, mere dissatisfaction or collective resistance may result in legitimate grounds for discipline if such orders are refused. If an employee considers a work order to be unjust, rather than immediately refusing it, it is advisable first to utilize objection procedures or lawful dispute‑resolution mechanisms by consulting the Labor Relations Commission or experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, among others.
Furthermore, where referral to a disciplinary committee is already anticipated, factors that may be considered in mitigation when determining the level of discipline (such as genuine remorse, efforts to minimize damage, prompt return to work, etc.) can play an important role. Employees should bear in mind that their subsequent attitude and manner of response can directly affect the severity of the disciplinary sanction.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, for orders that affect work patterns and working hours, such as on‑call duty and holiday work, it is important to clearly establish their legal basis in the rules of employment, collective agreements, and employment contracts, and to design them so that they do not conflict with statutory working hours and holiday provisions. When determining the level of discipline, employers should carefully consider, in a comprehensive manner, the intentional nature of the misconduct, its impact on the company, the employee’s record of meritorious service and prior disciplinary history, and the employee’s subsequent attitude, and prudently assess whether severe sanctions such as dismissal are truly necessary.
In addition, it is very important in Labor Relations Commission disputes to clearly set out in the personnel regulations the procedures relating to the composition, convening, notification, and guarantee of opportunities to make statements before the Personnel Committee, and, in actual practice, to systematically preserve minutes, attendance requests, written explanations, and other documents so that it is objectively evident that employees were provided with ample opportunity to present their case.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employees’ refusal, without just cause, to comply with lawful work orders and perform on‑call duty and holiday work constitutes a valid ground for disciplinary action.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
It is difficult to conclude that the misconduct lacked intent; under the disciplinary standards set forth in the personnel regulations, dismissal would have been permissible. However, taking into account as a mitigating factor the fact that the employees immediately returned to work after being ordered to do so, and that the employees had no record of meritorious service that would warrant mitigation of discipline, the level of discipline (“one month suspension”) is appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
There is no provision in the personnel regulations requiring disclosure of the list of Personnel Committee members when notifying employees of their attendance; the employees already had access rights to the Qubis program in which the list of Personnel Committee members was registered; and it is confirmed that the employees were afforded sufficient opportunity to make statements. Accordingly, no procedural defects in the disciplinary process are found.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employees’ refusal, without just cause, to comply with lawful work orders and perform on‑call duty and holiday work constitutes a valid ground for disciplinary action.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
It is difficult to conclude that the misconduct lacked intent; under the disciplinary standards set forth in the personnel regulations, dismissal would have been permissible. However, taking into account as a mitigating factor the fact that the employees immediately returned to work after being ordered to do so, and that the employees had no record of meritorious service that would warrant mitigation of discipline, the level of discipline (“one month suspension”) is appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
There is no provision in the personnel regulations requiring disclosure of the list of Personnel Committee members when notifying employees of their attendance; the employees already had access rights to the Qubis program in which the list of Personnel Committee members was registered; and it is confirmed that the employees were afforded sufficient opportunity to make statements. Accordingly, no procedural defects in the disciplinary process are found. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (End of Contracted‑Out Project)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Form Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, violation of work orders (refusal of on‑call duty and holiday work), violation of company policy · failure to comply with work instructions, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (End of Contracted‑Out Project)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to violation of work orders (refusal of on‑call duty and holiday work) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Violation of Work Orders (Refusal of On‑Call Duty and Holiday Work).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “violation of work orders (refusal of on‑call duty and holiday work).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal 9110 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.12 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employees’ refusal, without just cause, to comply with lawful work orders and perform on‑call duty and holiday work constitutes a valid ground for disciplinary action.
1. Legal Implications
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, the key issue was the legitimacy of disciplinary action imposed where employees collectively refused orders to perform on‑call duty and holiday work. The Labor Relations Commission recognized the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ruled in favor of the employer. In doing so, it can be said that the legal principles on unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal that Labor Law Firm Law& has accumulated were fully reflected.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
Pursuant to its personnel regulations, the employer issued work orders directing employees to perform on‑call duty and holiday work. Some employees, without just cause, refused to comply with these orders and did not perform the assigned duties. The employer, through its Personnel Committee, imposed disciplinary sanctions of “one month suspension from duty.”
The employees filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline), arguing that there were no grounds for discipline, that even if grounds existed the level of discipline was excessive, and that there were procedural defects, such as failure to disclose the list of Personnel Committee members.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were whether the employer’s orders regarding on‑call duty and holiday work constituted legitimate work orders, whether refusal to comply with such orders constituted grounds for discipline, and further, whether the level of discipline (“one month suspension”) and the procedures followed could be recognized as legitimate by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employer’s instructions regarding on‑call duty and holiday work constituted legitimate work orders that did not conflict with the employment contracts, rules of employment, etc.; that it was clear that the employees did not comply with these orders and collectively refused them; and that no unavoidable circumstances were identified that would justify the employees’ failure to comply with the work orders.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the employees’ conduct constituted misconduct undermining work discipline and workplace order, and thus amounted to grounds for discipline.
In addition, under the disciplinary standards set forth in the personnel regulations, dismissal would have been permissible; however, the employer took into account as a mitigating factor that the employees immediately returned to work upon being ordered to do so and reduced the sanction to “one month suspension.” Considering also that the employees had no record of meritorious service that would warrant mitigation of discipline, the Commission found that the level of discipline could not be regarded as markedly excessive by social standards. It further found no procedural defects in the disciplinary process, on the grounds that there was no provision in the personnel regulations requiring disclosure of the list of Personnel Committee members when notifying employees of their attendance, that the employees already had access rights to the Qubis program in which the list of Personnel Committee members was registered, and that the employees had been afforded sufficient opportunity to make statements before the Personnel Committee.
Ultimately, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was justified in terms of grounds for discipline, level of discipline, and disciplinary procedures, and ruled that the employees’ applications for remedy for unfair dismissal should be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employees’ perspective, unless the employer’s orders regarding on‑call duty and holiday work clearly violate laws or collective agreements, or constitute “unjust orders” that infringe employees’ human rights, mere dissatisfaction or collective resistance may result in legitimate grounds for discipline if such orders are refused. If an employee considers a work order to be unjust, rather than immediately refusing it, it is advisable first to utilize objection procedures or lawful dispute‑resolution mechanisms by consulting the Labor Relations Commission or experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, among others.
Furthermore, where referral to a disciplinary committee is already anticipated, factors that may be considered in mitigation when determining the level of discipline (such as genuine remorse, efforts to minimize damage, prompt return to work, etc.) can play an important role. Employees should bear in mind that their subsequent attitude and manner of response can directly affect the severity of the disciplinary sanction.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, for orders that affect work patterns and working hours, such as on‑call duty and holiday work, it is important to clearly establish their legal basis in the rules of employment, collective agreements, and employment contracts, and to design them so that they do not conflict with statutory working hours and holiday provisions. When determining the level of discipline, employers should carefully consider, in a comprehensive manner, the intentional nature of the misconduct, its impact on the company, the employee’s record of meritorious service and prior disciplinary history, and the employee’s subsequent attitude, and prudently assess whether severe sanctions such as dismissal are truly necessary.
In addition, it is very important in Labor Relations Commission disputes to clearly set out in the personnel regulations the procedures relating to the composition, convening, notification, and guarantee of opportunities to make statements before the Personnel Committee, and, in actual practice, to systematically preserve minutes, attendance requests, written explanations, and other documents so that it is objectively evident that employees were provided with ample opportunity to present their case.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employees’ refusal, without just cause, to comply with lawful work orders and perform on‑call duty and holiday work constitutes a valid ground for disciplinary action.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
It is difficult to conclude that the misconduct lacked intent; under the disciplinary standards set forth in the personnel regulations, dismissal would have been permissible. However, taking into account as a mitigating factor the fact that the employees immediately returned to work after being ordered to do so, and that the employees had no record of meritorious service that would warrant mitigation of discipline, the level of discipline (“one month suspension”) is appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
There is no provision in the personnel regulations requiring disclosure of the list of Personnel Committee members when notifying employees of their attendance; the employees already had access rights to the Qubis program in which the list of Personnel Committee members was registered; and it is confirmed that the employees were afforded sufficient opportunity to make statements. Accordingly, no procedural defects in the disciplinary process are found.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employees’ refusal, without just cause, to comply with lawful work orders and perform on‑call duty and holiday work constitutes a valid ground for disciplinary action.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
It is difficult to conclude that the misconduct lacked intent; under the disciplinary standards set forth in the personnel regulations, dismissal would have been permissible. However, taking into account as a mitigating factor the fact that the employees immediately returned to work after being ordered to do so, and that the employees had no record of meritorious service that would warrant mitigation of discipline, the level of discipline (“one month suspension”) is appropriate.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
There is no provision in the personnel regulations requiring disclosure of the list of Personnel Committee members when notifying employees of their attendance; the employees already had access rights to the Qubis program in which the list of Personnel Committee members was registered; and it is confirmed that the employees were afforded sufficient opportunity to make statements. Accordingly, no procedural defects in the disciplinary process are found. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (End of Contracted‑Out Project)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Form Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, violation of work orders (refusal of on‑call duty and holiday work), violation of company policy · failure to comply with work instructions, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (End of Contracted‑Out Project)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to violation of work orders (refusal of on‑call duty and holiday work) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Violation of Work Orders (Refusal of On‑Call Duty and Holiday Work).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
