This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “defects in disciplinary procedures (security guard uniform · negligent performance of duties).” [Case Information] This case concerns a decision where the employee, a security guard, ultimately prevailed (full recognition) on the issue of “defects in disciplinary procedures (security guard uniform · negligent performance of duties).” Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1618 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-02 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld Summary of key issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline Although, as a security guard, the employee was required to wear a name tag, badge, and gas sprayer at the workplace as a basic condition of duty, he failed to comply with this requirement. This was confirmed by巡回 inspection reports and photographs, as well as complaint text messages from the client workplace (○○ Bank). 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee performing security duties was dismissed for cause on the grounds that he failed to wear his name tag, badge, and gas sprayer and was negligent in the performance of his duties. Claiming that the dismissal was unfair, he filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, in a comprehensive manner, the巡回 inspection reports, photographs, complaint text messages from the client (○○ Bank) submitted by the employer, and the course of the disciplinary procedure, in order to determine whether grounds for discipline existed and whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are: (i) whether the circumstances of failing to wear the basic uniform required of a security guard and displaying negligent performance of duties constitute grounds for disciplinary dismissal, and (ii) how the grounds for discipline must be described and notified in a notice of attendance at a disciplinary committee hearing in order for the disciplinary procedure to be deemed lawful. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employer had proven the employee’s failure to wear his name tag, badge, and gas sprayer through巡回 inspection reports and photographs, as well as complaint text messages from the client workplace (○○ Bank). It also found that circumstances indicating negligent performance of duties—such as a passive attitude toward customers and frequent absences from the post—were largely confirmed through such complaint messages. In light of the nature of security work, where proper uniform and equipment are basic requirements for maintaining safety and order, the panel held that grounds for discipline did exist with respect to the employee. However, with respect to the disciplinary procedure, the panel noted that: (i) Supreme Court precedents have held that merely listing the provision numbers of the work rules as the grounds for discipline does not satisfy the requirement of specifying the grounds for discipline; (ii) where a collective agreement or work rules impose an obligation to notify the alleged facts constituting the grounds for discipline, failure to comply with such obligation constitutes a serious procedural defect; and (iii) conversely, in the absence of such specific provisions, a certain degree of abbreviated description may be permitted. In light of these principles, the decisive criterion for assessing the legitimacy of the procedure is the extent to which the employer actually informed the employee of the specific grounds for discipline and guaranteed a meaningful opportunity to present his explanation. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it should be borne in mind that repeated violations of basic service obligations required of security personnel—such as wearing a name tag, badge, and gas sprayer—can in themselves constitute grounds for discipline. At the same time, if you receive a notice to attend a disciplinary committee hearing and the grounds for discipline stated in the notice are too abstract or difficult to understand, you should request clarification of the specific facts and supporting evidence, and actively prepare materials to explain your position so as to exercise your procedural right of defense. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the work rules and service regulations the basic obligations regarding security guards’ uniforms and equipment, restrictions on leaving the post, attitude in dealing with customers, and so forth, and to systematically accumulate objective evidence such as巡回 inspection records, photographs, and complaint text messages in the ordinary course of business. In addition, when issuing a notice to attend a disciplinary committee hearing, instead of merely stating “violation of service regulations,” the employer should specify “when, where, and what conduct occurred” in sufficient detail for the employee to understand, and establish procedures that provide a genuine opportunity for the employee to explain his position. Doing so will help reduce disputes over unfair dismissal. In this type of unfair dismissal dispute, it must be reaffirmed that not only the existence of grounds for discipline, but also the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure and the proportionality of the disciplinary measure, must all be satisfied. From the stage of the Labor Relations Commission proceedings, it is advisable to have an accurate understanding of the relevant legal principles and to organize the facts and evidence carefully with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence of grounds for discipline As a person performing security duties, the employee was required to wear a name tag, badge, and gas sprayer at the workplace as a basic condition of duty. Nevertheless, his failure to comply with this requirement was confirmed by巡回 inspection reports and photographs, as well as complaint text messages from the client workplace (○○ Bank). In addition, considering the complaint messages from the workplace, the employee’s negligent performance of duties—such as a passive attitude in dealing with customers and frequent absences from his post—is presumed to be factual. Accordingly, it was determined that grounds for discipline existed with respect to the employee. B. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure When the employer delivered the notice of attendance at the disciplinary committee hearing to the employee, the description of “the grounds for discipline or the occurrence of the grounds for discipline …” 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Existence of grounds for discipline As a person performing security duties, the employee was required to wear a name tag, badge, and gas sprayer at the workplace as a basic condition of duty. Nevertheless, his failure to comply with this requirement was confirmed by巡回 inspection reports and photographs, as well as complaint text messages from the client workplace (○○ Bank). In addition, considering the complaint messages from the workplace, the employee’s negligent performance of duties—such as a passive attitude in dealing with customers and frequent absences from his post—is presumed to be factual. Accordingly, it was determined that grounds for discipline existed with respect to the employee. B. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure When the employer delivered the notice of attendance at the disciplinary committee hearing to the employee, the description of “the grounds for discipline or the occurrence of the grounds for discipline …” [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Existence of Grounds for Dismissal (One Day of Unauthorised Absence)’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made Over the Phone)’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Standing to Sue (Reconstruction Apartment Residents’ Representative Council)’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, defects in disciplinary procedures (security guard uniform · negligent performance of duties), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policies · 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Existence of Grounds for Dismissal (One Day of Unauthorised Absence),” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to defects in disciplinary procedures (security guard uniform · negligent performance of duties) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Defects in Disciplinary Procedures (Security Guard Uniform · Negligent Performance of Duties).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article