[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (25-day suspension from driving duties for a traffic accident).” Date of Decision: 2026-07-06 · Labor Relations Commission: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해562 Key Issue Summary: 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 causes a traffic accident through carelessness or negligence” may be disciplined. Accordingly, the Commission found that a ground for discipline existed. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an application for relief filed with the Labor Relations Commission challenging, as unfair dismissal and unfair discipline, a 25-day suspension from driving duties imposed on an employee of a transportation company after the employee caused a traffic accident. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted its hearing focusing on whether the traffic accident itself could constitute a ground for discipline, whether the level of discipline was excessive, and whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedure. The Commission assessed the legitimacy of the disciplinary action comprehensively, taking into account the Rules of Employment and the disciplinary standards for transportation workers, the circumstances and extent of the damage caused by the accident, and whether the disciplinary committee procedures had been followed. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Whether imposing a 25-day suspension from driving duties, based on a ground for discipline set out in the Rules of Employment, for a traffic accident caused by the employee’s negligence constitutes a legitimate disciplinary action in terms of (i) existence of a ground for discipline, (ii) appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) propriety of the disciplinary procedure.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that a ground for discipline existed, in light of: (i) the express provision in the employer’s Rules of Employment that a “person who causes a traffic accident through carelessness or negligence” may be disciplined; (ii) the absence of any dispute between the employee and the employer as to the occurrence of the traffic accident and its use as a ground for discipline; and (iii) the fact that, under established case law, traffic accidents are recognized as a typical ground for discipline constituting neglect of duty in transportation companies. The Commission further found the level of discipline—25 days of suspension from driving duties—to be appropriate, because it was in accordance with the company’s “Standards for Disciplinary Action and Rewards for Transportation Workers,” and, considering the extent of the damage caused by the accident, the nature of the duties, and the risk of serious accidents, it could not be regarded as a disposition that was so excessively harsh as to be clearly unreasonable by social norms. Nor could it be viewed as an abuse of discretionary power in the sense that the disciplinary measure was grossly disproportionate to the ground for discipline, as prohibited by the Labor Standards Act and relevant case law. Moreover, the Commission held that there was no serious procedural defect. Its reasoning included: the employer delivered to the employee a notice of convening a disciplinary committee specifying the ground for discipline and the date and time of appearance; the employee actually appeared before the disciplinary committee and presented explanations; the disciplinary measure was imposed following a resolution by the disciplinary committee; and the employee did not separately challenge the fairness of the procedure itself. In light of these circumstances, it was difficult to conclude that the employer had failed to comply with the disciplinary procedures set out in the Rules of Employment or that there was any material procedural defect. Ultimately, the Labor Relations Commission recognized the existence of a ground for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the legitimacy of the disciplinary procedure, and therefore held that the disciplinary action in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal or unfair discipline. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is important to specifically contest (i) whether work-related negligence such as a traffic accident falls within the grounds for discipline stipulated in the Rules of Employment, and (ii) whether, in light of the actual circumstances of the accident and the extent of the damage, the level of discipline is excessively harsh by social norms. In particular, it is crucial to attend the disciplinary committee, provide sufficient explanations, and submit materials showing favorable circumstances, such as whether the sanction is markedly heavier than in similar or comparable cases, efforts to remedy the damage after the accident, and the employee’s work attitude. To assert procedural defects in the disciplinary process, the employee must concretely verify whether the prior notice of the ground for discipline, the opportunity to present explanations, and the composition and resolution procedures of the disciplinary committee were carried out in accordance with the Rules of Employment and any collective agreement. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome is not sufficient to establish a procedural defect. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, in order to treat work-related negligence such as a traffic accident as a ground for discipline, it is essential to clearly specify in the Rules of Employment and personnel regulations concrete grounds and standards for discipline, such as “where a traffic accident is caused through carelessness or negligence.” At the stage of determining the level of discipline, the employer should not only rely on internal disciplinary standards but also comprehensively consider the circumstances of the accident, the extent of the damage, the risk of recurrence, any prior disciplinary history, and whether the damage has been remedied, so that the measure is not, by social norms, conspicuously excessive. In addition, the employer must follow the procedures set out in the Rules of Employment—such as giving notice of the convening of a disciplinary committee, specifying the ground for discipline, guaranteeing the opportunity to attend and explain, and obtaining a resolution of the disciplinary committee—and keep written records of the process, so that it can prove the legitimacy of the ground, level, and procedure of the disciplinary action before the Labor Relations Commission. If consistent disciplinary standards are not applied in similar cases, issues of equity may arise and the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline may be found to have been abused. Accordingly, it is advisable to consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance to refine disciplinary rules and practices. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that the disciplinary action was legitimate, finding that a ground for discipline (occurrence of a traffic accident, etc.) existed, the level of discipline was appropriate, and there were no defects in the disciplinary procedure. 3. Summary of Findings A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings 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 causes a traffic accident through carelessness or negligence” may be disciplined. Accordingly, the Commission found that a ground for discipline existed. B. Whether the Level of Discipline Was Appropriate The 25-day suspension from driving duties imposed on the employee by the employer was based on the extent 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, by social norms, is so clearly unreasonable as to fall outside the scope of the employer’s discretionary power. C. Whether the Disciplinary Procedure Was Lawful The employee is not challenging the unfairness of the disciplinary procedure itself, and the employer delivered to the employee a notice of convening a disciplinary committee specifying the ground for discipline and the date and time of appearance, whereupon the employee appeared and provided explanations. The disciplinary measure was then imposed following a resolution by the disciplinary committee. As there are no circumstances indicating that the employer failed to comply with the disciplinary procedures set out in the Rules of Employment, it is difficult to find that there was any procedural defect in the disciplinary process. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Entity)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Supervision and Management)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Interest in Relief · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (25-day suspension from driving duties for traffic accident), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Personnel Appointment (Removal of Supervisory Duties of Security Guard)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (25-day suspension from driving duties for traffic accident) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (25-Day Suspension from Driving Duties for Traffic Accident).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article