Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Disciplinary Severity (Bicycle Drunk Driving)” (Unfair Dismissal 452)
- Date2026/05/15 04:04
- Read 110
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (bicycle drunk driving).”
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent that concluded with a decision in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (bicycle drunk driving).”
Decision body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae38 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.25 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
1. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee, while intoxicated, rode a bicycle on a bicycle-only path and sidewalk, was caught in a drunk-driving crackdown, and was issued a summary fine on the spot for violation of the Road Traffic Act (drunk driving of a bicycle, etc.). This conduct was found to violate the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity as stipulated in Articles 6 and 8 of the Rules of Employment and Articles 32 and 37 of the Personnel Regulations, and therefore to constitute grounds for discipline under Article 52 of the Personnel Regulations.
---
1. Legal Implications
This article examines the criteria for determining unfair dismissal and the appropriateness of disciplinary severity through a case before the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which a disciplinary measure arising from bicycle drunk driving was at issue. Based on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, we will summarize how the Labor Relations Commission assessed the case, and what both employees and companies should prepare in similar situations.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee, while intoxicated, rode a bicycle on a bicycle-only path and sidewalk, was caught in a drunk-driving crackdown, and was issued a summary fine on the spot for violation of the Road Traffic Act (drunk driving of a bicycle, etc.). The employer regarded this as a violation of the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity under the Rules of Employment and imposed a disciplinary sanction of “two months’ reduction in pay.” The employee, claiming that the discipline was excessive, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (discipline).
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are: “Where an employee, outside working hours, rides a bicycle while intoxicated and is issued a summary fine for violation of the Road Traffic Act, can this be used as grounds for discipline, and is the resulting disciplinary measure of a two‑month reduction in pay so manifestly unreasonable by social standards as to be deemed an excessive disciplinary severity?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employee, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.124%, rode a bicycle for approximately 43 minutes over a distance of about 7 km before being caught in a drunk-driving crackdown and issued a summary fine; that bicycle drunk driving carries a non‑negligible risk, as it can cause significant personal injury accidents such as collisions with pedestrians and serious bodily harm; that the Rules of Employment and Personnel Regulations explicitly list violations of the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity as grounds for discipline; and that, in similar cases, a two‑month reduction in pay had also been imposed, so there was no major issue of consistency.
In light of these factors, the Commission held that the disciplinary measure in this case could not be regarded as manifestly excessive by social standards in view of the existing grounds for discipline, nor could it be evaluated as an abuse or overstepping of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
Accordingly, the Commission determined that the dismissal (disciplinary measure) in this case could not be considered unfair, contrary to the employee’s claim.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that even conduct outside working hours and not directly related to work, where it involves acts that are highly blameworthy in the eyes of society—such as violations of the Road Traffic Act—may constitute a breach of the duty to maintain dignity under the Rules of Employment and thus grounds for discipline. In particular, in cases of drunk driving (including on a bicycle), the blood alcohol concentration, driving time and distance, and the degree of risk of an accident are assessed comprehensively. Therefore, one should not assume that company discipline can be avoided merely because the criminal sanction is minor or only at the level of a summary fine.
In addition, when preparing an application for remedy, it is important to systematically organize and submit to the Labor Relations Commission materials such as: what level of discipline has been imposed in similar cases, the company’s disciplinary practices and consistency, the employee’s past work attitude and disciplinary record, whether any damage occurred, and efforts made to remedy such damage, as these are key factors in determining the appropriateness of disciplinary severity.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important that the Rules of Employment and Personnel Regulations clearly and specifically define as grounds for discipline the duty of good faith, the duty to maintain dignity, and acts of drinking and driving and violations of traffic laws (including on bicycles). At the stage of determining disciplinary severity, employers should comprehensively consider factors such as the risk and specific circumstances of the misconduct, blood alcohol concentration, driving time and distance, whether an accident occurred, past similar disciplinary cases, and consistency with measures taken against other employees, and select a level of discipline that would not be regarded as excessively harsh by social standards.
With respect to disciplinary procedures, employers must faithfully comply with the procedures set out in internal regulations—such as convening a disciplinary committee, notifying the grounds for discipline, and providing an opportunity for explanation—in order to have procedural legitimacy recognized by the Labor Relations Commission. Therefore, when an incident occurs, it is advisable to consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the initial stage and systematically manage evidence collection and procedural steps.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
1. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee, while intoxicated, rode a bicycle on a bicycle-only path and sidewalk, was caught in a drunk-driving crackdown, and was issued a summary fine on the spot for violation of the Road Traffic Act (drunk driving of a bicycle, etc.). This conduct was found to violate the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity as stipulated in Articles 6 and 8 of the Rules of Employment and Articles 32 and 37 of the Personnel Regulations, and therefore to constitute grounds for discipline under Article 52 of the Personnel Regulations.
2. Appropriateness of disciplinary severity
In cases of bicycle drunk driving, there is a substantial possibility of causing personal injury accidents such as collisions with pedestrians, and in such cases, victims may suffer considerable bodily harm. Thus, the risk of bicycle drunk driving cannot be lightly regarded as low. In this employee’s case, the blood alcohol concentration (0.124%) was quite high, and the driving time (approximately 43 minutes) and driving distance (about 7 km) were fairly long. In light of this, it is difficult to view the conduct as low‑risk merely because it involved riding a bicycle. In similar cases, there have been instances where a disciplinary sanction of “two months’ reduction in pay” was imposed, and therefore it is difficult to regard the disciplinary measure in this case as lacking consistency. Considering these circumstances as a whole, the choice of “two months’ reduction in pay” as a disciplinary measure against the employee cannot be deemed a disposition that is manifestly unreasonable by social standards and beyond the scope of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
3. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
No procedural defects were identified in the course of imposing discipline on the employee.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
1. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee, while intoxicated, rode a bicycle on a bicycle-only path and sidewalk, was caught in a drunk-driving crackdown, and was issued a summary fine on the spot for violation of the Road Traffic Act (drunk driving of a bicycle, etc.). This conduct was found to violate the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity as stipulated in Articles 6 and 8 of the Rules of Employment and Articles 32 and 37 of the Personnel Regulations, and therefore to constitute grounds for discipline under Article 52 of the Personnel Regulations.
2. Appropriateness of disciplinary severity
In cases of bicycle drunk driving, there is a substantial possibility of causing personal injury accidents such as collisions with pedestrians, and in such cases, victims may suffer considerable bodily harm. Thus, the risk of bicycle drunk driving cannot be lightly regarded as low. In this employee’s case, the blood alcohol concentration (0.124%) was quite high, and the driving time (approximately 43 minutes) and driving distance (about 7 km) were fairly long. In light of this, it is difficult to view the conduct as low‑risk merely because it involved riding a bicycle. In similar cases, there have been instances where a disciplinary sanction of “two months’ reduction in pay” was imposed, and therefore it is difficult to regard the disciplinary measure in this case as lacking consistency. Considering these circumstances as a whole, the choice of “two months’ reduction in pay” as a disciplinary measure against the employee cannot be deemed a disposition that is manifestly unreasonable by social standards and beyond the scope of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
3. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
No procedural defects were identified in the course of imposing discipline on the employee. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent”
- “‘Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (bicycle drunk driving), 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Hiring Decision (Change of Start Date)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent,” in a new window.
※ A list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (bicycle drunk driving) can be found under “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (Bicycle Drunk Driving).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent that concluded with a decision in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (bicycle drunk driving).”
Decision body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae38 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.25 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
1. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee, while intoxicated, rode a bicycle on a bicycle-only path and sidewalk, was caught in a drunk-driving crackdown, and was issued a summary fine on the spot for violation of the Road Traffic Act (drunk driving of a bicycle, etc.). This conduct was found to violate the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity as stipulated in Articles 6 and 8 of the Rules of Employment and Articles 32 and 37 of the Personnel Regulations, and therefore to constitute grounds for discipline under Article 52 of the Personnel Regulations.
---
1. Legal Implications
This article examines the criteria for determining unfair dismissal and the appropriateness of disciplinary severity through a case before the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which a disciplinary measure arising from bicycle drunk driving was at issue. Based on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, we will summarize how the Labor Relations Commission assessed the case, and what both employees and companies should prepare in similar situations.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee, while intoxicated, rode a bicycle on a bicycle-only path and sidewalk, was caught in a drunk-driving crackdown, and was issued a summary fine on the spot for violation of the Road Traffic Act (drunk driving of a bicycle, etc.). The employer regarded this as a violation of the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity under the Rules of Employment and imposed a disciplinary sanction of “two months’ reduction in pay.” The employee, claiming that the discipline was excessive, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (discipline).
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are: “Where an employee, outside working hours, rides a bicycle while intoxicated and is issued a summary fine for violation of the Road Traffic Act, can this be used as grounds for discipline, and is the resulting disciplinary measure of a two‑month reduction in pay so manifestly unreasonable by social standards as to be deemed an excessive disciplinary severity?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employee, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.124%, rode a bicycle for approximately 43 minutes over a distance of about 7 km before being caught in a drunk-driving crackdown and issued a summary fine; that bicycle drunk driving carries a non‑negligible risk, as it can cause significant personal injury accidents such as collisions with pedestrians and serious bodily harm; that the Rules of Employment and Personnel Regulations explicitly list violations of the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity as grounds for discipline; and that, in similar cases, a two‑month reduction in pay had also been imposed, so there was no major issue of consistency.
In light of these factors, the Commission held that the disciplinary measure in this case could not be regarded as manifestly excessive by social standards in view of the existing grounds for discipline, nor could it be evaluated as an abuse or overstepping of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
Accordingly, the Commission determined that the dismissal (disciplinary measure) in this case could not be considered unfair, contrary to the employee’s claim.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that even conduct outside working hours and not directly related to work, where it involves acts that are highly blameworthy in the eyes of society—such as violations of the Road Traffic Act—may constitute a breach of the duty to maintain dignity under the Rules of Employment and thus grounds for discipline. In particular, in cases of drunk driving (including on a bicycle), the blood alcohol concentration, driving time and distance, and the degree of risk of an accident are assessed comprehensively. Therefore, one should not assume that company discipline can be avoided merely because the criminal sanction is minor or only at the level of a summary fine.
In addition, when preparing an application for remedy, it is important to systematically organize and submit to the Labor Relations Commission materials such as: what level of discipline has been imposed in similar cases, the company’s disciplinary practices and consistency, the employee’s past work attitude and disciplinary record, whether any damage occurred, and efforts made to remedy such damage, as these are key factors in determining the appropriateness of disciplinary severity.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important that the Rules of Employment and Personnel Regulations clearly and specifically define as grounds for discipline the duty of good faith, the duty to maintain dignity, and acts of drinking and driving and violations of traffic laws (including on bicycles). At the stage of determining disciplinary severity, employers should comprehensively consider factors such as the risk and specific circumstances of the misconduct, blood alcohol concentration, driving time and distance, whether an accident occurred, past similar disciplinary cases, and consistency with measures taken against other employees, and select a level of discipline that would not be regarded as excessively harsh by social standards.
With respect to disciplinary procedures, employers must faithfully comply with the procedures set out in internal regulations—such as convening a disciplinary committee, notifying the grounds for discipline, and providing an opportunity for explanation—in order to have procedural legitimacy recognized by the Labor Relations Commission. Therefore, when an incident occurs, it is advisable to consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the initial stage and systematically manage evidence collection and procedural steps.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
1. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee, while intoxicated, rode a bicycle on a bicycle-only path and sidewalk, was caught in a drunk-driving crackdown, and was issued a summary fine on the spot for violation of the Road Traffic Act (drunk driving of a bicycle, etc.). This conduct was found to violate the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity as stipulated in Articles 6 and 8 of the Rules of Employment and Articles 32 and 37 of the Personnel Regulations, and therefore to constitute grounds for discipline under Article 52 of the Personnel Regulations.
2. Appropriateness of disciplinary severity
In cases of bicycle drunk driving, there is a substantial possibility of causing personal injury accidents such as collisions with pedestrians, and in such cases, victims may suffer considerable bodily harm. Thus, the risk of bicycle drunk driving cannot be lightly regarded as low. In this employee’s case, the blood alcohol concentration (0.124%) was quite high, and the driving time (approximately 43 minutes) and driving distance (about 7 km) were fairly long. In light of this, it is difficult to view the conduct as low‑risk merely because it involved riding a bicycle. In similar cases, there have been instances where a disciplinary sanction of “two months’ reduction in pay” was imposed, and therefore it is difficult to regard the disciplinary measure in this case as lacking consistency. Considering these circumstances as a whole, the choice of “two months’ reduction in pay” as a disciplinary measure against the employee cannot be deemed a disposition that is manifestly unreasonable by social standards and beyond the scope of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
3. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
No procedural defects were identified in the course of imposing discipline on the employee.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
1. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee, while intoxicated, rode a bicycle on a bicycle-only path and sidewalk, was caught in a drunk-driving crackdown, and was issued a summary fine on the spot for violation of the Road Traffic Act (drunk driving of a bicycle, etc.). This conduct was found to violate the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity as stipulated in Articles 6 and 8 of the Rules of Employment and Articles 32 and 37 of the Personnel Regulations, and therefore to constitute grounds for discipline under Article 52 of the Personnel Regulations.
2. Appropriateness of disciplinary severity
In cases of bicycle drunk driving, there is a substantial possibility of causing personal injury accidents such as collisions with pedestrians, and in such cases, victims may suffer considerable bodily harm. Thus, the risk of bicycle drunk driving cannot be lightly regarded as low. In this employee’s case, the blood alcohol concentration (0.124%) was quite high, and the driving time (approximately 43 minutes) and driving distance (about 7 km) were fairly long. In light of this, it is difficult to view the conduct as low‑risk merely because it involved riding a bicycle. In similar cases, there have been instances where a disciplinary sanction of “two months’ reduction in pay” was imposed, and therefore it is difficult to regard the disciplinary measure in this case as lacking consistency. Considering these circumstances as a whole, the choice of “two months’ reduction in pay” as a disciplinary measure against the employee cannot be deemed a disposition that is manifestly unreasonable by social standards and beyond the scope of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
3. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
No procedural defects were identified in the course of imposing discipline on the employee. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent”
- “‘Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (bicycle drunk driving), 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Hiring Decision (Change of Start Date)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent,” in a new window.
※ A list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (bicycle drunk driving) can be found under “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (Bicycle Drunk Driving).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
