[Case Information] This case is a labor commission decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “abusive cancellation of disciplinary action (unilateral cancellation of prior discipline).” Decision body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae613 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-07-03 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld Summary of key issues: A. Whether the cancellation of the prior disciplinary disposition was valid The employer’s unilateral cancellation of the prior disciplinary disposition in this case constituted an abuse of disciplinary authority and was therefore invalid. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer first imposed a disciplinary sanction on the employee, then unilaterally cancelled that sanction, and thereafter imposed a new sanction of dismissal. The issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether this dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined both whether the cancellation of the prior disciplinary disposition itself was lawful, and, even assuming the cancellation was valid, whether the level of discipline in the subsequent dismissal was justified. Although this structure differs from a redundancy dismissal, it is a type of disciplinary dismissal and illustrates important legal principles governing the exercise of disciplinary authority in general. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case were: “(i) whether it constitutes an abuse of disciplinary authority for an employer to unilaterally cancel a prior disciplinary disposition that has already been imposed and is validly in effect, and then impose a more severe sanction of dismissal; and (ii) even if the cancellation of the prior discipline were deemed valid, whether the level of discipline in the subsequent dismissal violates the principles of proportionality and equity and therefore constitutes an unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the employer failed to present a reasonable basis for claiming to correct any defect or error in the level of the prior disciplinary disposition, that the employer unilaterally cancelled the prior discipline solely in a manner that aggravated the level of discipline to the employee’s detriment, and that the dismissal imposed after the cancellation was excessive in light of the grounds for discipline and thus contrary to the principles of equity and proportionality. Accordingly, the panel held that the employer’s unilateral cancellation of the prior disciplinary disposition in this case constituted an abuse of disciplinary authority and was therefore invalid. Furthermore, even assuming the cancellation of the prior discipline were valid, the panel found that, considering comprehensively the nature and degree of the grounds for discipline, the company’s general disciplinary standards for similar cases, equity in comparison with other employees, and whether, under social norms, the employment relationship had become untenable, the dismissal in this case involved an excessively severe level of discipline and thus constituted an abuse and overstepping of the employer’s discretion, rendering it unfair. The dismissal in this case was therefore held to be unfair on the ground that the level of discipline violated the principle of equity. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, if, after a prior disciplinary sanction has already been imposed, the employer cancels that sanction without clearly explaining the reasons and immediately replaces it with a more severe measure such as dismissal, it is important to recognize that the employee can vigorously challenge this as an abuse of disciplinary authority. In addition, even where some of the grounds for discipline are acknowledged, if the level of discipline is excessive and contrary to the principles of proportionality and equity, the Labor Relations Commission may grant a remedy for unfair dismissal. Employees should therefore systematically organize and submit to the Commission materials on consistency with similar cases, their own work attitude, and any prior disciplinary history. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, where a prior disciplinary disposition is found to have procedural or substantive defects, or the level of discipline is considered inappropriate, the employer may cancel the disposition and re-impose discipline. However, the employer must prepare documentation and minutes so that the premises and reasons for such action can be objectively substantiated. In particular, simply cancelling a prior disciplinary measure “in order to impose a heavier sanction” and escalating it to dismissal carries a high risk of being evaluated as an abuse of disciplinary authority. In assessing the appropriateness of the level of discipline, employers must, as indicated in Supreme Court precedent, comprehensively consider the degree of misconduct, the company’s disciplinary practices, equality with other employees, and whether, under social norms, the employment relationship can be maintained. Because this type of decision clearly delineates the limits of cancelling discipline and re-imposing sanctions in unfair dismissal disputes, it is advisable for both employees and employers to fully understand the legal principles on the level of discipline applied by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, and to respond systematically from the outset of a case with the assistance of professional labor consultants such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Validity of the Cancellation of the Prior Disciplinary Disposition The employer’s unilateral cancellation of the prior disciplinary disposition in this case constituted an abuse of disciplinary authority and was therefore invalid. B. Legitimacy of the Dismissal in This Case Even if the cancellation of the prior disciplinary disposition were deemed valid, the level of discipline violated the principle of equity and was therefore without effect. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Validity of the Cancellation of the Prior Disciplinary Disposition The employer’s unilateral cancellation of the prior disciplinary disposition in this case constituted an abuse of disciplinary authority and was therefore invalid. B. Legitimacy of the Dismissal in This Case Even if the cancellation of the prior disciplinary disposition were deemed valid, the level of discipline violated the principle of equity and was therefore without effect. / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, abusive cancellation of disciplinary action (unilateral cancellation of prior discipline), disciplinary dismissal, 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&. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Denial of Employee Status (Academy Vehicle Driver and Accompanying Teacher)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to abusive cancellation of disciplinary action (unilateral cancellation of prior discipline) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Abusive Cancellation of Disciplinary Action (Unilateral Cancellation of Prior Discipline).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article