[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary measure (25-day suspension from driving duties for traffic accident).” Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae562 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-06 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of key issues: A. Whether a ground for discipline exists There was no dispute between the employee and the employer as to the occurrence of the accident or that the traffic accident constituted a ground for discipline, and Article 70 of the Rules of Employment provides that “a person who has caused a traffic accident through carelessness or negligence” may be disciplined. Accordingly, it was determined that a ground for discipline existed. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, an employee of a transportation company caused a traffic accident while performing his duties and, after receiving a disciplinary sanction of a 25-day suspension from driving duties from the company, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission determined whether the dismissal was unfair, focusing on the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the legality of the disciplinary procedures. The employee applied for relief, asserting that the disciplinary measure was excessive and unfair, but the Labor Relations Commission sided with the employer and dismissed the application for remedy. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is: “Whether, in relation to a traffic accident caused by the employee’s carelessness or negligence, a 25-day suspension from driving duties imposed pursuant to the Rules of Employment constitutes an abuse of discretion in the determination of the level of discipline that is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The decision panel in this case noted that there was no dispute between the employee and the employer regarding the occurrence of the traffic accident and that the traffic accident constituted a ground for discipline; that the Rules of Employment expressly list as a ground for discipline “a person who has caused a traffic accident through carelessness or negligence”; and that the 25-day suspension from driving duties was determined in accordance with the “Standards for Disciplinary Action and Rewards for Transportation Workers” set out in the Rules of Employment and based on the scale of the damage caused by the accident. Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was based on a recognized ground for discipline and that the level of discipline could not be regarded as an abuse of discretion that is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms. On this basis, the panel found the employer’s disciplinary action to be justified and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, where a ground for discipline specified in the Rules of Employment—such as a traffic accident—has occurred, it should be noted that merely asserting that “the discipline is excessive” is generally insufficient to obtain a finding of unfair dismissal or unfair discipline. It is necessary to adopt a strategy that specifically proves, based on a comprehensive consideration of the circumstances of the accident, whether it was repeated, the scale of the damage, and consistency with similar cases, that the disciplinary measure is markedly harsh in light of social norms. In addition, for those engaged in the transportation industry or driving positions, violations of traffic laws and prior accident history are given very significant weight in determining the level of discipline. It should always be borne in mind that safe driving and compliance with company rules are directly linked to job security. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when imposing discipline for safety-related misconduct such as a traffic accident, it is important to determine the level of discipline based on internal regulations such as the Rules of Employment and the “Standards for Disciplinary Action and Rewards for Transportation Workers,” and to apply those standards consistently. Whether the level of discipline is justified in light of social norms is assessed comprehensively, taking into account not only internal standards but also the nature of the accident, the scale of the damage, and the employee’s prior record. Therefore, these circumstances should be documented during the disciplinary decision-making process. Furthermore, the legitimacy of disciplinary action is recognized only when all three elements are satisfied: the existence of a ground for discipline, compliance with procedures, and appropriateness of the level of discipline. Accordingly, advance preparation of procedural requirements—such as operating a disciplinary committee and providing the employee with an opportunity to present explanations—will be of great help in preventing similar disputes. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Determined A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Whether a ground for discipline exists There was no dispute between the employee and the employer as to the occurrence of the accident or that the traffic accident constituted a ground for discipline, and Article 70 of the Rules of Employment provides that “a person who has caused a traffic accident through carelessness or negligence” may be disciplined. Accordingly, it is determined that a ground for discipline exists. B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate The 25-day suspension from driving duties imposed by the employer on the employee was based on the scale of the damage caused by the accident and on the “Standards for Disciplinary Action and Rewards for Transportation Workers” in the Rules of Employment, and therefore cannot be regarded as a disposition that is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms or that exceeds the bounds of the employer’s discretion. C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures … 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision A. Whether a ground for discipline exists There was no dispute between the employee and the employer as to the occurrence of the accident or that the traffic accident constituted a ground for discipline, and Article 70 of the Rules of Employment provides that “a person who has caused a traffic accident through carelessness or negligence” may be disciplined. Accordingly, it is determined that a ground for discipline exists. B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate The 25-day suspension from driving duties imposed by the employer on the employee was based on the scale of the damage caused by the accident and on the “Standards for Disciplinary Action and Rewards for Transportation Workers” in the Rules of Employment, and therefore cannot be regarded as a disposition that is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms or that exceeds the bounds of the employer’s discretion. C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures … / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Personnel Appointment (Removal of Supervisory Duties from Security Guard under the National Public Officials Act Equivalent)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Denial of Employee Status (Service Contract)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made in Telephone Call)”’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary measure (25-day suspension from driving duties for traffic accident), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Personnel Appointment (Removal of Supervisory Duties from Security Guard under the National Public Officials Act Equivalent)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary measures (25-day suspension from driving duties for traffic accident) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Measure (25-Day Suspension from Driving Duties for Traffic Accident).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article