Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Legitimate Union Activity (Encouraging Attendance at a General Meeting of Union Members)” (Unfair Dismissal 420)
- Date2026/05/01 04:09
- Read 133
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “legitimate union activity (encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members).”
[Case Information]
This case concluded with a full victory for the employee on the issue of “legitimate union activity (encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae54 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.04.06 · Outcome: Full Recognition
Summary of Key Issues:
1. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Action
The employee’s act of encouraging colleagues to attend a general meeting of union members constitutes legitimate labor union activity and does not fall under any ground for discipline as set out in Articles 63(2), 63(4), and 63(15) of the company’s Rules of Employment.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee encouraged colleagues to attend a labor union general meeting of union members, the company imposed disciplinary measures and personnel actions such as demotion (removal from position) and transfer. The employee then filed an application with the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission seeking remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices.
The Labor Relations Commission examined not only the legitimacy of the disciplinary and personnel measures, but also whether the employer’s conduct constituted an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (the “Trade Union Act”). It appears highly likely that, in the course of the Commission proceedings, the employee contested the unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices with the assistance of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are whether the employee’s act of encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members constitutes legitimate labor union activity; whether, notwithstanding this, the disciplinary measures, demotion, transfer, and dismissal imposed on that basis were a legitimate exercise of the employer’s personnel authority; and further, whether such measures amount to an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment under the Trade Union Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee’s act of encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members constituted legitimate labor union activity protected by the Constitution and the Trade Union Act; that such conduct cannot be subsumed under the grounds for discipline set forth in the company’s Rules of Employment (Articles 63(2), 63(4), 63(15), etc.); and that disciplinary measures, demotion, and transfer imposed on the basis of legitimate union activity constitute an abuse of personnel authority and are null and void ab initio.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair because the disciplinary grounds themselves were not established. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the employer’s imposition of disciplinary measures, demotion, and transfer on account of the employee’s legitimate union activity clearly imposed disadvantages on the employee’s status and treatment, thereby constituting “disadvantageous treatment” and thus an unfair labor practice under the Trade Union Act. However, it found that these measures alone did not rise to the level of “domination or interference” with the operation of the labor union.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, where activities such as encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members or soliciting union membership fall within the bounds of legitimate activities for the organization and operation of a union, any disciplinary or personnel disadvantages imposed on that basis may be challenged as unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices. However, it should be borne in mind that, for an unfair labor practice to be established, the burden of proof lies with the employee/union side to show that the conduct in question was a “legitimate act for the affairs of the labor union” and that the employer imposed disadvantages because of that conduct.
It is also crucial to systematically organize information on each personnel measure—such as discipline, demotion (removal from position), and transfer—including the grounds and timing of the measures, the content of the notifications, and the specific provisions of the Rules of Employment cited by the company. This will be very important in any subsequent application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission. In cases where similar disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal arise, it is advisable at an early stage to consult with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review both whether the conduct constitutes legitimate union activity and whether there is a possibility of unfair labor practices.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
Employers must clearly recognize that, where an employee’s conduct—such as encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members for the organization and operation of the union—constitutes legitimate labor union activity, such conduct cannot be treated as a ground for discipline, and any demotion, transfer, or dismissal imposed on that basis will be deemed an abuse of personnel authority and thus invalid. It is also important to note that, in order to assert the legitimacy of disciplinary action, the employer bears the primary burden of proof to show that the employee’s specific conduct falls under a ground for discipline in the Rules of Employment, that the disciplinary procedures were observed, and that the level of discipline was not excessive.
In situations where legitimate union activity conflicts with the employer’s rights to manage its facilities and direct work, the employer should first comprehensively consider the purpose, means, and method of the activity; the working hours and location; and the impact on business operations, and then determine whether the activity is “legitimate” before deciding on any measures. If personnel measures are later evaluated as having been taken on the basis of legitimate union activity, this may not only lead to a finding of unfair dismissal but also to a finding of unfair labor practices in the form of disadvantageous treatment under the Trade Union Act, resulting in significant legal risk. Accordingly, employers should establish a response strategy in advance after obtaining advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
1. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Action
The employee’s act of encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members constitutes legitimate labor union activity and does not fall under any ground for discipline as set out in Articles 63(2), 63(4), and 63(15) of the company’s Rules of Employment. There is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, both of which presuppose the existence of grounds for discipline.
2. Legitimacy of Demotion and Transfer
Because the employee’s act of encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members is not recognized as a ground for discipline, the demotion (removal from position) and transfer imposed on the employee constitute an abuse of personnel authority and are null and void ab initio. There is no need to further examine whether there was a business necessity for the demotion and transfer, whether they caused disadvantages in the employee’s livelihood, or whether the procedures for good-faith consultation were lawful, all of which presuppose the existence of grounds for discipline.
3. Whether the Disciplinary Measures, Demotion, and Transfer Constitute Unfair Labor Practices in the Form of Disadvantageous Treatment and Domination/Interference under the Trade Union Act
The employer’s abuse of personnel authority in imposing disciplinary measures, demotion, and transfer on account of the employee’s legitimate labor union activity constitutes an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment. However, it is difficult to regard this as an unfair labor practice in the form of domination or interference.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
1. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Action
The employee’s act of encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members constitutes legitimate labor union activity and does not fall under any ground for discipline as set out in Articles 63(2), 63(4), and 63(15) of the company’s Rules of Employment. There is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, both of which presuppose the existence of grounds for discipline.
2. Legitimacy of Demotion and Transfer
Because the employee’s act of encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members is not recognized as a ground for discipline, the demotion (removal from position) and transfer imposed on the employee constitute an abuse of personnel authority and are null and void ab initio. There is no need to further examine whether there was a business necessity for the demotion and transfer, whether they caused disadvantages in the employee’s livelihood, or whether the procedures for good-faith consultation were lawful, all of which presuppose the existence of grounds for discipline.
3. Whether the Disciplinary Measures, Demotion, and Transfer Constitute Unfair Labor Practices in the Form of Disadvantageous Treatment and Domination/Interference under the Trade Union Act
The employer’s abuse of personnel authority in imposing disciplinary measures, demotion, and transfer on account of the employee’s legitimate labor union activity constitutes an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment. However, it is difficult to regard this as an unfair labor practice in the form of domination or interference. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Excessive Level of Discipline (Discipline for Workplace Bullying)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimate union activity (encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members), disciplinary dismissal, performance evaluation · poor performance, others, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Excessive Level of Discipline (Discipline for Workplace Bullying)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to legitimate union activity (encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members) can be viewed together on the page “List of Decisions Related to Legitimate Union Activity (Encouraging Attendance at a General Meeting of Union Members).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case concluded with a full victory for the employee on the issue of “legitimate union activity (encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae54 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.04.06 · Outcome: Full Recognition
Summary of Key Issues:
1. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Action
The employee’s act of encouraging colleagues to attend a general meeting of union members constitutes legitimate labor union activity and does not fall under any ground for discipline as set out in Articles 63(2), 63(4), and 63(15) of the company’s Rules of Employment.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee encouraged colleagues to attend a labor union general meeting of union members, the company imposed disciplinary measures and personnel actions such as demotion (removal from position) and transfer. The employee then filed an application with the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission seeking remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices.
The Labor Relations Commission examined not only the legitimacy of the disciplinary and personnel measures, but also whether the employer’s conduct constituted an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (the “Trade Union Act”). It appears highly likely that, in the course of the Commission proceedings, the employee contested the unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices with the assistance of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are whether the employee’s act of encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members constitutes legitimate labor union activity; whether, notwithstanding this, the disciplinary measures, demotion, transfer, and dismissal imposed on that basis were a legitimate exercise of the employer’s personnel authority; and further, whether such measures amount to an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment under the Trade Union Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee’s act of encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members constituted legitimate labor union activity protected by the Constitution and the Trade Union Act; that such conduct cannot be subsumed under the grounds for discipline set forth in the company’s Rules of Employment (Articles 63(2), 63(4), 63(15), etc.); and that disciplinary measures, demotion, and transfer imposed on the basis of legitimate union activity constitute an abuse of personnel authority and are null and void ab initio.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair because the disciplinary grounds themselves were not established. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the employer’s imposition of disciplinary measures, demotion, and transfer on account of the employee’s legitimate union activity clearly imposed disadvantages on the employee’s status and treatment, thereby constituting “disadvantageous treatment” and thus an unfair labor practice under the Trade Union Act. However, it found that these measures alone did not rise to the level of “domination or interference” with the operation of the labor union.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, where activities such as encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members or soliciting union membership fall within the bounds of legitimate activities for the organization and operation of a union, any disciplinary or personnel disadvantages imposed on that basis may be challenged as unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices. However, it should be borne in mind that, for an unfair labor practice to be established, the burden of proof lies with the employee/union side to show that the conduct in question was a “legitimate act for the affairs of the labor union” and that the employer imposed disadvantages because of that conduct.
It is also crucial to systematically organize information on each personnel measure—such as discipline, demotion (removal from position), and transfer—including the grounds and timing of the measures, the content of the notifications, and the specific provisions of the Rules of Employment cited by the company. This will be very important in any subsequent application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission. In cases where similar disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal arise, it is advisable at an early stage to consult with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review both whether the conduct constitutes legitimate union activity and whether there is a possibility of unfair labor practices.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
Employers must clearly recognize that, where an employee’s conduct—such as encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members for the organization and operation of the union—constitutes legitimate labor union activity, such conduct cannot be treated as a ground for discipline, and any demotion, transfer, or dismissal imposed on that basis will be deemed an abuse of personnel authority and thus invalid. It is also important to note that, in order to assert the legitimacy of disciplinary action, the employer bears the primary burden of proof to show that the employee’s specific conduct falls under a ground for discipline in the Rules of Employment, that the disciplinary procedures were observed, and that the level of discipline was not excessive.
In situations where legitimate union activity conflicts with the employer’s rights to manage its facilities and direct work, the employer should first comprehensively consider the purpose, means, and method of the activity; the working hours and location; and the impact on business operations, and then determine whether the activity is “legitimate” before deciding on any measures. If personnel measures are later evaluated as having been taken on the basis of legitimate union activity, this may not only lead to a finding of unfair dismissal but also to a finding of unfair labor practices in the form of disadvantageous treatment under the Trade Union Act, resulting in significant legal risk. Accordingly, employers should establish a response strategy in advance after obtaining advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
1. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Action
The employee’s act of encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members constitutes legitimate labor union activity and does not fall under any ground for discipline as set out in Articles 63(2), 63(4), and 63(15) of the company’s Rules of Employment. There is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, both of which presuppose the existence of grounds for discipline.
2. Legitimacy of Demotion and Transfer
Because the employee’s act of encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members is not recognized as a ground for discipline, the demotion (removal from position) and transfer imposed on the employee constitute an abuse of personnel authority and are null and void ab initio. There is no need to further examine whether there was a business necessity for the demotion and transfer, whether they caused disadvantages in the employee’s livelihood, or whether the procedures for good-faith consultation were lawful, all of which presuppose the existence of grounds for discipline.
3. Whether the Disciplinary Measures, Demotion, and Transfer Constitute Unfair Labor Practices in the Form of Disadvantageous Treatment and Domination/Interference under the Trade Union Act
The employer’s abuse of personnel authority in imposing disciplinary measures, demotion, and transfer on account of the employee’s legitimate labor union activity constitutes an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment. However, it is difficult to regard this as an unfair labor practice in the form of domination or interference.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
1. Legitimacy of Disciplinary Action
The employee’s act of encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members constitutes legitimate labor union activity and does not fall under any ground for discipline as set out in Articles 63(2), 63(4), and 63(15) of the company’s Rules of Employment. There is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, both of which presuppose the existence of grounds for discipline.
2. Legitimacy of Demotion and Transfer
Because the employee’s act of encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members is not recognized as a ground for discipline, the demotion (removal from position) and transfer imposed on the employee constitute an abuse of personnel authority and are null and void ab initio. There is no need to further examine whether there was a business necessity for the demotion and transfer, whether they caused disadvantages in the employee’s livelihood, or whether the procedures for good-faith consultation were lawful, all of which presuppose the existence of grounds for discipline.
3. Whether the Disciplinary Measures, Demotion, and Transfer Constitute Unfair Labor Practices in the Form of Disadvantageous Treatment and Domination/Interference under the Trade Union Act
The employer’s abuse of personnel authority in imposing disciplinary measures, demotion, and transfer on account of the employee’s legitimate labor union activity constitutes an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment. However, it is difficult to regard this as an unfair labor practice in the form of domination or interference. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Excessive Level of Discipline (Discipline for Workplace Bullying)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimate union activity (encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members), disciplinary dismissal, performance evaluation · poor performance, others, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Excessive Level of Discipline (Discipline for Workplace Bullying)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to legitimate union activity (encouraging attendance at a general meeting of union members) can be viewed together on the page “List of Decisions Related to Legitimate Union Activity (Encouraging Attendance at a General Meeting of Union Members).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
