[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary quantum (prolonged misconduct).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1612 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-03 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: … The employer applied the disciplinary standards under its rules, and the employee’s misconduct was committed over a long period by abusing his/her position at work. The nature and degree of the misconduct were by no means minor and were deemed to have had a significant impact on the relationship of trust with the company. Taking into account, in addition, that the standards for determining the level of discipline appear to have been applied consistently, it is difficult to view the instant disciplinary dismissal as having so clearly lost its rational justification in light of social norms that it constitutes a deviation or abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee who had been dismissed for disciplinary reasons filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, in a comprehensive manner, whether the employer had complied with the disciplinary standards and procedures set out in its rules of employment and reward-and-punishment guidelines, as well as the nature and degree of the employee’s misconduct, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case was: “Where an employee has engaged in prolonged misconduct by abusing his/her position at work, does a disciplinary dismissal imposed in accordance with the disciplinary standards under the rules of employment constitute an unfair dismissal that has so clearly lost its rational justification in light of social norms?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the employer applied disciplinary standards based on its rules of employment and reward-and-punishment guidelines; that the employee’s misconduct was committed over a long period by abusing his/her position at work, and that its nature and degree were by no means minor and had a significant impact on the relationship of trust with the company; and that, compared with other cases, the standards for determining the level of discipline appeared to have been applied consistently. In light of these factors, the panel determined that it was difficult to regard the dismissal in this case as having so clearly lost its rational justification in light of social norms that it constituted a deviation or abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority. The panel also found that the disciplinary procedures were lawfully conducted, in that a personnel committee was actually convened in accordance with the rules of employment and reward-and-punishment guidelines, the employee was notified of the grounds for discipline, and a sufficient opportunity to explain was provided. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that where misconduct exploiting one’s position at work is repeated over a long period, there is a high likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will find the employer’s disciplinary dismissal to be justified. In particular, where the rules of employment clearly set out the grounds for dismissal and the standards for determining the level of discipline, and the disciplinary procedures—such as convening a personnel committee, prior notice, and providing an opportunity to explain—are lawfully carried out, it will be difficult to overturn the dismissal through an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when imposing discipline for employee misconduct, it is important to set out in concrete terms the grounds for discipline and the standards for determining the level of discipline in the rules of employment and reward-and-punishment guidelines, and to apply these consistently in each actual case. In addition, procedural fairness must be ensured by constituting and convening a personnel or disciplinary committee in accordance with the prescribed rules, providing prior notice of the grounds for discipline, and granting a sufficient opportunity to explain. Labor Law Firm Law& also emphasizes in practice that only when such procedural legitimacy is secured will the likelihood increase that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of a disciplinary dismissal. 2. Matters Determined a. Case Overview and Procedural History … The employer applied the disciplinary standards, and the employee’s misconduct was committed over a long period by abusing his/her position at work. The nature and degree of the misconduct were by no means minor and were deemed to have had a significant impact on the relationship of trust with the company. Taking into account, in addition, that the standards for determining the level of discipline appear to have been applied consistently, it is difficult to view the instant disciplinary dismissal as having so clearly lost its rational justification in light of social norms that it constitutes a deviation or abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures: A personnel committee was convened in accordance with the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment and reward-and-punishment guidelines, and the disciplinary procedures were lawful in that the employee was notified of the grounds for discipline and was given a sufficient opportunity to explain … 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … The employer applied the disciplinary standards, and the employee’s misconduct was committed over a long period by abusing his/her position at work. The nature and degree of the misconduct were by no means minor and were deemed to have had a significant impact on the relationship of trust with the company. Taking into account, in addition, that the standards for determining the level of discipline appear to have been applied consistently, it is difficult to view the instant disciplinary dismissal as having so clearly lost its rational justification in light of social norms that it constitutes a deviation or abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures: A personnel committee was convened in accordance with the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment and reward-and-punishment guidelines, and the disciplinary procedures were lawful in that the employee was notified of the grounds for discipline and was given a sufficient opportunity to explain … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Abuse of Disciplinary Cancellation (Unilateral Cancellation of Prior Discipline)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary quantum (prolonged misconduct), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Abuse of Disciplinary Cancellation (Unilateral Cancellation of Prior Discipline)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary quantum (prolonged misconduct) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Quantum (Prolonged Misconduct).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article