Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Traffic Accident Involving Pedestrian Collision)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 447)
- Date2026/05/12 04:09
- Read 112
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (traffic accident involving pedestrian collision).”
Decision-making body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae41 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.25 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
In light of the police traffic accident investigation and the Bus Mutual Aid Association’s finding of fault, it is impossible not to recognize the worker’s responsibility for a personal injury accident involving a pedestrian collision.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a bus driver employed by a bus transportation company caused a traffic accident in which a pedestrian was struck. The company imposed a one‑month suspension as a disciplinary measure, whereupon the worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair discipline.
The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, taking into account the police investigation, the Bus Mutual Aid Association’s allocation of fault, and the circumstances surrounding the application of the company’s disciplinary standards, rendered a decision in favor of the employer. Labor Law Firm Law& has also frequently encountered similar disputes in which the core issue is whether the severity of the disciplinary measure is justified.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where a traffic accident occurred involving a pedestrian collision, whether the disciplinary measure of imposing a one‑month suspension on the bus driver is justified in terms of grounds for discipline, procedure, and disciplinary severity, and furthermore, whether it constitutes an abuse of disciplinary discretion under generally accepted social norms.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that: the worker was determined to be the “at‑fault” driver in the police traffic accident investigation; the Bus Mutual Aid Association, applying the standards of the General Insurance Association of Korea, found the worker’s share of fault to be 80%; given the public‑interest nature of the bus transportation business, there is no difficulty in treating a personal injury accident involving a pedestrian collision as grounds for discipline; the company determined the level of discipline in accordance with the revised disciplinary severity standards table agreed with the labor union, reducing the initial two‑month suspension to a one‑month suspension upon reconsideration; and, compared with similar disciplinary cases, the level of discipline cannot be viewed as particularly severe.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case cannot be regarded as having lost its validity to such an extent, under generally accepted social norms, that it constitutes an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority, and that there are no circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, even if a traffic accident feels “unavoidable,” once external bodies such as the police and insurers have determined that the worker was at fault and have confirmed a high percentage of negligence, that determination itself functions as a core basis for disciplinary grounds. In particular, in transportation businesses with a high degree of public interest, such as buses and taxis, disciplinary measures for traffic accidents may be assessed more strictly than in ordinary workplaces. It should also be borne in mind that it is not easy for disciplinary measures such as suspension or pay reduction to be immediately recognized as unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, first, it is important to clearly establish the grounds for discipline based on objective materials such as the results of the police investigation and the Mutual Aid Association’s allocation of fault. Second, the level of discipline should be determined in a balanced manner in accordance with internal standards, such as the disciplinary severity standards table agreed with the labor union. Third, records should be kept of any reconsideration or mitigation procedures undertaken to ensure that the sanction does not become excessively harsh.
In addition, employers should strictly comply with the rules governing disciplinary procedures to prevent procedural defects, and, unlike collective redundancies, be prepared to explain that even in individual disciplinary cases they are making determinations within the scope of their discretion in line with the judicial standard of whether the measure has “clearly lost its validity under generally accepted social norms.”
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
In light of the police traffic accident investigation and the Bus Mutual Aid Association’s allocation of fault, it is impossible not to recognize responsibility for a personal injury accident involving a pedestrian collision. Even considering the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident at the time, the company in this case operates a bus transportation business with a high degree of public interest, and it is assessed that there is no significant problem in treating the worker’s traffic accident involving a pedestrian collision as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Even if the alleged unavoidability of the accident asserted by the worker is partially recognized, the following circumstances were taken into account: the worker was determined to be the “at‑fault” party in the police investigation; applying the standards recognized by the General Insurance Association of Korea, the Bus Mutual Aid Association found the worker’s share of fault to be 80%; the company determined the level of discipline based on the revised disciplinary severity standards table agreed with the labor union; the worker’s disciplinary sanction was mitigated from an initial two‑month suspension to a one‑month suspension after reconsideration; compared with similar disciplinary cases, the level of discipline imposed on the worker cannot be considered high; and, given the public‑interest nature of the company’s business, it is inevitable that traffic accidents will be treated as matters of significant weight. Taken together, it is difficult to view the one‑month suspension as having clearly lost its validity under generally accepted social norms or as an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There are no particular circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
In light of the police traffic accident investigation and the Bus Mutual Aid Association’s allocation of fault, it is impossible not to recognize responsibility for a personal injury accident involving a pedestrian collision. Even considering the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident at the time, the company in this case operates a bus transportation business with a high degree of public interest, and it is assessed that there is no significant problem in treating the worker’s traffic accident involving a pedestrian collision as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Even if the alleged unavoidability of the accident asserted by the worker is partially recognized, the following circumstances were taken into account: the worker was determined to be the “at‑fault” party in the police investigation; applying the standards recognized by the General Insurance Association of Korea, the Bus Mutual Aid Association found the worker’s share of fault to be 80%; the company determined the level of discipline based on the revised disciplinary severity standards table agreed with the labor union; the worker’s disciplinary sanction was mitigated from an initial two‑month suspension to a one‑month suspension after reconsideration; compared with similar disciplinary cases, the level of discipline imposed on the worker cannot be considered high; and, given the public‑interest nature of the company’s business, it is inevitable that traffic accidents will be treated as matters of significant weight. Taken together, it is difficult to view the one‑month suspension as having clearly lost its validity under generally accepted social norms or as an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There are no particular circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”’
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Right to Terminate Probationary Employment (Failure to Meet Probation Evaluation Standards)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (traffic accident involving pedestrian collision), violation of company policy · failure to comply 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Right to Terminate Probationary Employment (Failure to Meet Probation Evaluation Standards)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to disciplinary severity (traffic accident involving pedestrian collision) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Disciplinary Severity (Traffic Accident Involving Pedestrian Collision).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (traffic accident involving pedestrian collision).”
Decision-making body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae41 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.25 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
In light of the police traffic accident investigation and the Bus Mutual Aid Association’s finding of fault, it is impossible not to recognize the worker’s responsibility for a personal injury accident involving a pedestrian collision.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a bus driver employed by a bus transportation company caused a traffic accident in which a pedestrian was struck. The company imposed a one‑month suspension as a disciplinary measure, whereupon the worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair discipline.
The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, taking into account the police investigation, the Bus Mutual Aid Association’s allocation of fault, and the circumstances surrounding the application of the company’s disciplinary standards, rendered a decision in favor of the employer. Labor Law Firm Law& has also frequently encountered similar disputes in which the core issue is whether the severity of the disciplinary measure is justified.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where a traffic accident occurred involving a pedestrian collision, whether the disciplinary measure of imposing a one‑month suspension on the bus driver is justified in terms of grounds for discipline, procedure, and disciplinary severity, and furthermore, whether it constitutes an abuse of disciplinary discretion under generally accepted social norms.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that: the worker was determined to be the “at‑fault” driver in the police traffic accident investigation; the Bus Mutual Aid Association, applying the standards of the General Insurance Association of Korea, found the worker’s share of fault to be 80%; given the public‑interest nature of the bus transportation business, there is no difficulty in treating a personal injury accident involving a pedestrian collision as grounds for discipline; the company determined the level of discipline in accordance with the revised disciplinary severity standards table agreed with the labor union, reducing the initial two‑month suspension to a one‑month suspension upon reconsideration; and, compared with similar disciplinary cases, the level of discipline cannot be viewed as particularly severe.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case cannot be regarded as having lost its validity to such an extent, under generally accepted social norms, that it constitutes an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority, and that there are no circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, even if a traffic accident feels “unavoidable,” once external bodies such as the police and insurers have determined that the worker was at fault and have confirmed a high percentage of negligence, that determination itself functions as a core basis for disciplinary grounds. In particular, in transportation businesses with a high degree of public interest, such as buses and taxis, disciplinary measures for traffic accidents may be assessed more strictly than in ordinary workplaces. It should also be borne in mind that it is not easy for disciplinary measures such as suspension or pay reduction to be immediately recognized as unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, first, it is important to clearly establish the grounds for discipline based on objective materials such as the results of the police investigation and the Mutual Aid Association’s allocation of fault. Second, the level of discipline should be determined in a balanced manner in accordance with internal standards, such as the disciplinary severity standards table agreed with the labor union. Third, records should be kept of any reconsideration or mitigation procedures undertaken to ensure that the sanction does not become excessively harsh.
In addition, employers should strictly comply with the rules governing disciplinary procedures to prevent procedural defects, and, unlike collective redundancies, be prepared to explain that even in individual disciplinary cases they are making determinations within the scope of their discretion in line with the judicial standard of whether the measure has “clearly lost its validity under generally accepted social norms.”
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
In light of the police traffic accident investigation and the Bus Mutual Aid Association’s allocation of fault, it is impossible not to recognize responsibility for a personal injury accident involving a pedestrian collision. Even considering the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident at the time, the company in this case operates a bus transportation business with a high degree of public interest, and it is assessed that there is no significant problem in treating the worker’s traffic accident involving a pedestrian collision as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Even if the alleged unavoidability of the accident asserted by the worker is partially recognized, the following circumstances were taken into account: the worker was determined to be the “at‑fault” party in the police investigation; applying the standards recognized by the General Insurance Association of Korea, the Bus Mutual Aid Association found the worker’s share of fault to be 80%; the company determined the level of discipline based on the revised disciplinary severity standards table agreed with the labor union; the worker’s disciplinary sanction was mitigated from an initial two‑month suspension to a one‑month suspension after reconsideration; compared with similar disciplinary cases, the level of discipline imposed on the worker cannot be considered high; and, given the public‑interest nature of the company’s business, it is inevitable that traffic accidents will be treated as matters of significant weight. Taken together, it is difficult to view the one‑month suspension as having clearly lost its validity under generally accepted social norms or as an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There are no particular circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
In light of the police traffic accident investigation and the Bus Mutual Aid Association’s allocation of fault, it is impossible not to recognize responsibility for a personal injury accident involving a pedestrian collision. Even considering the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident at the time, the company in this case operates a bus transportation business with a high degree of public interest, and it is assessed that there is no significant problem in treating the worker’s traffic accident involving a pedestrian collision as grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Even if the alleged unavoidability of the accident asserted by the worker is partially recognized, the following circumstances were taken into account: the worker was determined to be the “at‑fault” party in the police investigation; applying the standards recognized by the General Insurance Association of Korea, the Bus Mutual Aid Association found the worker’s share of fault to be 80%; the company determined the level of discipline based on the revised disciplinary severity standards table agreed with the labor union; the worker’s disciplinary sanction was mitigated from an initial two‑month suspension to a one‑month suspension after reconsideration; compared with similar disciplinary cases, the level of discipline imposed on the worker cannot be considered high; and, given the public‑interest nature of the company’s business, it is inevitable that traffic accidents will be treated as matters of significant weight. Taken together, it is difficult to view the one‑month suspension as having clearly lost its validity under generally accepted social norms or as an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There are no particular circumstances in the disciplinary procedure that would warrant a finding of illegality. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”’
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Right to Terminate Probationary Employment (Failure to Meet Probation Evaluation Standards)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (traffic accident involving pedestrian collision), violation of company policy · failure to comply 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Right to Terminate Probationary Employment (Failure to Meet Probation Evaluation Standards)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to disciplinary severity (traffic accident involving pedestrian collision) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Disciplinary Severity (Traffic Accident Involving Pedestrian Collision).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
