Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Only Non-Compliance with Work Instructions Acknowledged)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 411)
- Date2026/04/28 04:19
- Read 149
‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Only Non-Compliance with Work Instructions Acknowledged)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 1)
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary sanction (only non-compliance with work instructions acknowledged).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae10057 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.10 · Outcome: Application fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Of the six grounds for discipline stated in the disciplinary resolution, no clear evidence or basis provisions were presented for any ground other than the fact of non-compliance with a work-related request; therefore, the other grounds were not recognized as valid grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The one-month suspension based on six grounds for discipline was found to be excessively severe compared to the single ground actually recognized, thereby exceeding the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
c. —
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee received a disciplinary sanction of one month’s suspension from the company, the employee regarded this as a disadvantageous measure equivalent in substance to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the level of discipline was excessive when, among the six alleged grounds for discipline, most were not accepted due to lack of evidence and only “non-compliance with a work-related request” was ultimately acknowledged.
The Commission comprehensively examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure, and concluded that the level of discipline exceeded the limits of the employer’s discretionary authority. Accordingly, it fully upheld the employee’s application for remedy. In this process, Labor Law Firm Law& represented the employee in the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where multiple grounds for discipline are listed in the disciplinary resolution, but in reality only some of them (non-compliance with a work-related request) are acknowledged, does the one-month suspension constitute an excessively severe disciplinary sanction that departs from or abuses the employer’s discretionary authority in setting the level of discipline?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that, among the six grounds for discipline stated in the disciplinary resolution, no clear evidence or basis provisions were presented for any ground other than the fact of “non-compliance with a work-related request”; that the level of discipline must be determined in proportion to the grounds for discipline that the employer actually considered and the seriousness of the misconduct; and that suspension is a severe disciplinary measure that cuts off all or a substantial part of wages, and therefore requires a considerable degree of balance in light of social norms.
In view of the nature and degree of the single ground for discipline that was recognized, the panel found that the one-month suspension was excessively severe and thus departed from and abused the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline. It also held that, although there was no defect in the disciplinary procedure itself because work rules had not been prepared and therefore there were no provisions on disciplinary procedures to be violated, the mere absence of procedural defects could not justify an excessively severe level of discipline.
The dismissal in this case was therefore found to be substantively an excessive disciplinary measure and was held to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the company lists multiple grounds for discipline, you should carefully examine, for each ground, whether there is specific evidence and a basis provision, and which grounds are actually proven. In particular, where you have received a severe disciplinary sanction such as suspension or wage reduction, if there is an imbalance between the seriousness of the recognized grounds for discipline and the level of discipline imposed, you should consider challenging the appropriateness of the disciplinary level by filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline) with the Labor Relations Commission.
You should also bear in mind that, even in workplaces where work rules or disciplinary regulations have not been established, the employer’s disciplinary authority cannot exceed the limits of the principle of proportionality and the standard of reasonableness under social norms. It is very important for dispute response to preserve, as far as possible, objective materials such as disciplinary documents, notices of grounds for discipline, and records of conversations and instructions at the time.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, merely specifying a broad range of disciplinary grounds does not secure the legitimacy of the discipline; for each ground, you must be able to present clear facts, evidence, and applicable basis provisions. In particular, when choosing severe disciplinary measures such as suspension or disciplinary dismissal, you should comprehensively consider all relevant circumstances, including the nature and degree of the misconduct, the employee’s work attitude and past record, and the level of discipline imposed in similar cases, and adjust the level of discipline so that it is not evaluated as markedly excessive in light of social norms.
Furthermore, where discipline is carried out customarily in the absence of work rules, the lack of procedural rules may not become a major issue in the short term, but in the long term it makes it difficult to ensure consistency in disciplinary standards and levels and may work to your disadvantage in the event of a dispute. Accordingly, it is advisable to establish work rules that include grounds for discipline, types of disciplinary measures, and standards for determining the level of discipline, and, when actually imposing discipline, to select sanctions in a step-by-step and proportionate manner in accordance with those standards.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Of the six grounds for discipline stated in the disciplinary resolution, no clear evidence or basis provisions were presented for any ground other than the fact of non-compliance with a work-related request; therefore, the other grounds were not recognized as valid grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The one-month suspension based on six grounds for discipline was found to be excessively severe compared to the grounds for discipline actually recognized, thereby exceeding the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Because work rules had not been prepared, there was no violation of any provisions regarding disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Of the six grounds for discipline stated in the disciplinary resolution, no clear evidence or basis provisions were presented for any ground other than the fact of non-compliance with a work-related request; therefore, the other grounds were not recognized as valid grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The one-month suspension based on six grounds for discipline was found to be excessively severe compared to the grounds for discipline actually recognized, thereby exceeding the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Because work rules had not been prepared, there was no violation of any provisions regarding disciplinary procedures.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Employer Status (Multiple Business Sites)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary sanction (only non-compliance with work instructions acknowledged), violation of company policy · non-compliance 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Employer Status (Multiple Business Sites)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary sanction (only non-compliance with work instructions acknowledged) at “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Only Non-Compliance with Work Instructions Acknowledged).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary sanction (only non-compliance with work instructions acknowledged).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae10057 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.10 · Outcome: Application fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Of the six grounds for discipline stated in the disciplinary resolution, no clear evidence or basis provisions were presented for any ground other than the fact of non-compliance with a work-related request; therefore, the other grounds were not recognized as valid grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The one-month suspension based on six grounds for discipline was found to be excessively severe compared to the single ground actually recognized, thereby exceeding the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
c. —
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee received a disciplinary sanction of one month’s suspension from the company, the employee regarded this as a disadvantageous measure equivalent in substance to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the level of discipline was excessive when, among the six alleged grounds for discipline, most were not accepted due to lack of evidence and only “non-compliance with a work-related request” was ultimately acknowledged.
The Commission comprehensively examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure, and concluded that the level of discipline exceeded the limits of the employer’s discretionary authority. Accordingly, it fully upheld the employee’s application for remedy. In this process, Labor Law Firm Law& represented the employee in the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where multiple grounds for discipline are listed in the disciplinary resolution, but in reality only some of them (non-compliance with a work-related request) are acknowledged, does the one-month suspension constitute an excessively severe disciplinary sanction that departs from or abuses the employer’s discretionary authority in setting the level of discipline?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that, among the six grounds for discipline stated in the disciplinary resolution, no clear evidence or basis provisions were presented for any ground other than the fact of “non-compliance with a work-related request”; that the level of discipline must be determined in proportion to the grounds for discipline that the employer actually considered and the seriousness of the misconduct; and that suspension is a severe disciplinary measure that cuts off all or a substantial part of wages, and therefore requires a considerable degree of balance in light of social norms.
In view of the nature and degree of the single ground for discipline that was recognized, the panel found that the one-month suspension was excessively severe and thus departed from and abused the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline. It also held that, although there was no defect in the disciplinary procedure itself because work rules had not been prepared and therefore there were no provisions on disciplinary procedures to be violated, the mere absence of procedural defects could not justify an excessively severe level of discipline.
The dismissal in this case was therefore found to be substantively an excessive disciplinary measure and was held to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the company lists multiple grounds for discipline, you should carefully examine, for each ground, whether there is specific evidence and a basis provision, and which grounds are actually proven. In particular, where you have received a severe disciplinary sanction such as suspension or wage reduction, if there is an imbalance between the seriousness of the recognized grounds for discipline and the level of discipline imposed, you should consider challenging the appropriateness of the disciplinary level by filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline) with the Labor Relations Commission.
You should also bear in mind that, even in workplaces where work rules or disciplinary regulations have not been established, the employer’s disciplinary authority cannot exceed the limits of the principle of proportionality and the standard of reasonableness under social norms. It is very important for dispute response to preserve, as far as possible, objective materials such as disciplinary documents, notices of grounds for discipline, and records of conversations and instructions at the time.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, merely specifying a broad range of disciplinary grounds does not secure the legitimacy of the discipline; for each ground, you must be able to present clear facts, evidence, and applicable basis provisions. In particular, when choosing severe disciplinary measures such as suspension or disciplinary dismissal, you should comprehensively consider all relevant circumstances, including the nature and degree of the misconduct, the employee’s work attitude and past record, and the level of discipline imposed in similar cases, and adjust the level of discipline so that it is not evaluated as markedly excessive in light of social norms.
Furthermore, where discipline is carried out customarily in the absence of work rules, the lack of procedural rules may not become a major issue in the short term, but in the long term it makes it difficult to ensure consistency in disciplinary standards and levels and may work to your disadvantage in the event of a dispute. Accordingly, it is advisable to establish work rules that include grounds for discipline, types of disciplinary measures, and standards for determining the level of discipline, and, when actually imposing discipline, to select sanctions in a step-by-step and proportionate manner in accordance with those standards.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Of the six grounds for discipline stated in the disciplinary resolution, no clear evidence or basis provisions were presented for any ground other than the fact of non-compliance with a work-related request; therefore, the other grounds were not recognized as valid grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The one-month suspension based on six grounds for discipline was found to be excessively severe compared to the grounds for discipline actually recognized, thereby exceeding the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Because work rules had not been prepared, there was no violation of any provisions regarding disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Of the six grounds for discipline stated in the disciplinary resolution, no clear evidence or basis provisions were presented for any ground other than the fact of non-compliance with a work-related request; therefore, the other grounds were not recognized as valid grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The one-month suspension based on six grounds for discipline was found to be excessively severe compared to the grounds for discipline actually recognized, thereby exceeding the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline.
c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Because work rules had not been prepared, there was no violation of any provisions regarding disciplinary procedures.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Employer Status (Multiple Business Sites)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary sanction (only non-compliance with work instructions acknowledged), violation of company policy · non-compliance 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Employer Status (Multiple Business Sites)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary sanction (only non-compliance with work instructions acknowledged) at “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Only Non-Compliance with Work Instructions Acknowledged).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
