[Case Information] This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of “appropriateness of disciplinary sanction (removal of company data via USB).” Decision date: 2026-07-06 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae139 Key issue summary: A. Existence of grounds for discipline (1) The employee refused, without just cause, to comply with the Quality Control Executive Director’s instruction to move his/her work location; (2) When issuing a COA (Certificate of Analysis) to a client, the employee entered only a single analysis value instead of calculating an average after five analyses as required, thereby causing a client complaint due to the employee’s negligence and damaging the company’s credibility; (3) Under the company’s security management regulations, personal laptops may not be used without approval, yet the employee, without the employer’s approval, used a personal laptop on company premises; … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee filed a relief application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that his/her dismissal by way of disciplinary action constituted unfair dismissal. The Central Labor Relations Commission, however, found that the grounds for discipline, the level of disciplinary sanction, and the disciplinary procedures were all justified, and ruled in favor of the employer. This decision concerns an employee engaged in quality control work who committed multiple acts of misconduct, including failure to comply with an instruction to move the work location, preparation of quality documents that undermined client trust, violation of security regulations, inappropriate remarks and behavior, unauthorized copying of company data, and mass storage of company data on a personal USB device. It clearly illustrates how the criteria for determining the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal—frequently addressed in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&—are applied. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is: “Where multiple acts of misconduct exist—such as failure to comply with an instruction to move the work location, serious negligence in quality control, violation of security regulations, inappropriate remarks and behavior, and unauthorized copying of company data—does dismissal, the most severe disciplinary measure, constitute unfair dismissal on the ground that it is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that: the employee refused, without just cause, to comply with the instruction to move his/her work location; by entering only a single analysis value instead of an average of five analyses in the COA submitted to a client, the employee caused a client complaint and thereby damaged the company’s external credibility; the employee violated the security management regulations by using a personal laptop without approval and by storing large volumes of key company data on a personal USB device; the employee disrupted workplace order by using abusive language during work and unjustifiably refusing work requests; and, despite having signed a pledge not to copy company information without authorization in connection with the performance of duties, the employee was caught copying PC data without authorization. The panel held that all five grounds for discipline were established. Given that the nature and degree of the employee’s misconduct were serious, that intent could be inferred, and that, considering the standards for determining the level of disciplinary sanction and the purpose of discipline as a whole, it was difficult to regard the dismissal as manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and further that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures—since a disciplinary committee was convened and its results were notified in accordance with the rules of employment and other relevant regulations— the panel held that this dismissal was a legitimate disciplinary dismissal in which the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of sanction, and the lawfulness of the procedures were all recognized, and therefore did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that even conduct perceived as a single minor violation can, when combined and accumulated with other conduct—such as failure to comply with an instruction to move the work location, serious negligence in quality control, violations of security and information protection rules, use of abusive language in the workplace, and refusal to perform work—be recognized by the Labor Relations Commission as grounds for a justified disciplinary dismissal. In particular, for employees engaged in duties directly linked to quality, security, and client trust, it is crucial to fully understand the contents of internal regulations and pledges and to manage one’s work attitude and behavior carefully so as not to repeatedly violate them. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it must be assumed that the burden of proof regarding the three core elements in determining the legitimacy of a disciplinary dismissal—namely, the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of sanction, and compliance with disciplinary procedures—lies with the employer. It is therefore important to clearly document, through written records, the specific facts and circumstances of the misconduct, the details of violations of company rules, and the resulting consequences, such as client complaints. In addition, by concretizing regulations relating to quality control, security, and prevention of information leakage through rules of employment, internal regulations, and pledges, and by establishing in advance corresponding standards for the level of disciplinary sanctions and applying them consistently, employers can be better prepared to persuasively demonstrate before the Labor Relations Commission that there has been no abuse of discretionary authority in imposing discipline. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was determined that all grounds for discipline were established, the level of disciplinary sanction was appropriate, and there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures, and thus the dismissal was justified. 3. Key Holdings A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline (1) The employee refused, without just cause, to comply with the Quality Control Executive Director’s instruction to move his/her work location; (2) When issuing a COA to a client, the employee entered only a single analysis value instead of calculating an average after five analyses as required, thereby causing a client complaint due to the employee’s negligence and damaging the company’s credibility; (3) Under the company’s security management regulations, personal laptops may not be used without approval, yet the employee, without the employer’s approval, used a personal laptop on company premises; (4) The employee used abusive language during work and unjustifiably refused work requests, thereby engaging in inappropriate remarks and behavior and undermining work discipline; (5) Despite having signed a pledge not to copy company information without authorization in connection with the performance of company duties, the employee was caught copying PC data without authorization and, without the employer’s approval, stored large volumes of key company data on a personal USB device. Accordingly, all five grounds for discipline are recognized. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Disciplinary Sanction In light of the nature, degree, and continuity of the employee’s misconduct that formed the grounds for discipline, as well as the purpose of discipline and the standards for determining the level of sanction, the misconduct is serious and intent can be inferred. Therefore, it is difficult to regard the dismissal as manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms or as an abuse of the discretionary authority vested in the disciplinary authority. c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures Since a disciplinary committee was convened and its results were notified in accordance with the rules of employment and other relevant regulations, there is no defect in the disciplinary procedures. [Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Negligent Supervision and Management)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanction (Participation in Outsourced Work for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, appropriateness of disciplinary sanction (removal of company data via USB), disciplinary dismissal, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanction (25-Day Suspension from Duty Following Traffic Accident)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to appropriateness of disciplinary sanction (removal of company data via USB) can be found under “List of Decisions on Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanction (Removal of Company Data via USB).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article