[Case Information] This case concerns a decision in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “procedural defects in disciplinary action (security guard uniform and negligent performance of duties).” Decision date: 2026-07-02 · Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae1618 Summary of key issue: A. Existence of grounds for discipline For a worker performing security duties, wearing a name tag, badge, and gas sprayer at the workplace is a basic requirement that must be observed. The worker’s failure to comply with this requirement was confirmed through巡 inspection reports and photographs, as well as complaint text messages from the workplace (○○ Bank). 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker performing security duties received a disciplinary sanction of a three‑month wage reduction. The worker regarded this as an unfair disciplinary action equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission found that, although the grounds for discipline themselves were established, there were serious defects in the disciplinary procedure, rendering the discipline unfair. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is: “Although there are grounds for discipline—such as failure, as a security guard, to wear a name tag, badge, and gas sprayer, and negligent customer service—whether a three‑month wage reduction imposed through a disciplinary committee procedure is lawful when the notice of appearance before the disciplinary committee did not state any disciplinary grounds or dates of occurrence.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that, given the nature of security work, the obligation to wear a name tag, badge, and gas sprayer is a basic service requirement; that negligent performance of duties was largely confirmed by objective materials such as巡 inspection reports and photographs and complaint text messages from the bank; and that, in light of the circumstances of complaints about passive customer service and frequent absence from the post, the grounds for discipline themselves existed. Nevertheless, the employer failed to state “the grounds for discipline and the dates of their occurrence” in the notice of appearance before the disciplinary committee, thereby failing to comply with the procedures guaranteed under the rules of employment. As a result, the worker was not substantively guaranteed an opportunity to exercise the right to defense. Although the employer claimed to have explained the grounds for discipline by telephone, it did not submit any supporting evidence such as call recordings. Taking these factors together, the panel held that, while this case did not involve a dismissal, the three‑month wage reduction was unfair due to serious defects in the disciplinary procedure, despite the existence of grounds for discipline. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, regardless of whether any misconduct actually occurred, it is essential to check whether the notice of discipline or the notice of appearance before the disciplinary committee specifies the concrete grounds for discipline and the dates of occurrence. If the rules of employment or a collective agreement impose an obligation to notify the alleged facts of misconduct, but the actual notice fails to specify those grounds, the likelihood of obtaining relief through the Labor Relations Commission may increase. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, even where the grounds for discipline are clear, the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment (prior notice, specification of the grounds and dates, provision of an opportunity to explain, etc.) must be implemented clearly and in writing, not merely in a formalistic manner. In occupations where external complaints arise directly—such as security and guarding, finance, and service industries—it is essential for preventing disputes to systematically retain both the evidence supporting the grounds for discipline (photographs, complaint text messages, inspection reports, etc.) and the notices of appearance and disciplinary decisions that set out those grounds. In this type of case, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts tend to strictly examine, separately from the employer’s discretion in determining the level of discipline, whether the procedures guaranteed under the rules of employment were observed and whether the worker’s right to defense was ensured. Employers are therefore advised to have their disciplinary processes reviewed and structured in advance with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which a three‑month wage reduction was found to be unfair on the ground that, although the grounds for discipline existed, there were defects in the disciplinary procedure. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Whether grounds for discipline existed For a worker performing security duties, wearing a name tag, badge, and gas sprayer at the workplace is a basic requirement that must be observed. The worker’s failure to comply with this requirement was confirmed through巡 inspection reports and photographs, as well as complaint text messages from the workplace (○○ Bank). In addition, the worker’s negligent performance of duties—such as a passive attitude in customer service and frequent absence from the post—is presumed to be factual in light of the complaint text messages from the workplace. Accordingly, the Commission found that there were grounds for discipline against the worker. b. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful When the employer delivered the notice of appearance before the disciplinary committee to the worker, it did not state even “the grounds for discipline or the dates on which the grounds arose.” This constitutes a failure to properly comply with the procedures guaranteed under the rules of employment and is unfair in that the worker was not afforded even a minimum opportunity to defend against the charges. In this regard, although the employer claimed to have notified the worker of the grounds for discipline by telephone, no separate call recording was submitted, and thus the claim was not sufficiently proven. Taking this into account, the Commission found that there were defects in the disciplinary procedure against the worker. [See More Related Decisions] - “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Excessive Level of Discipline (Negligent Supervision and Management)’” - “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Level of Discipline (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, procedural defects in disciplinary action (security guard uniform and negligent performance of duties), violation of company policy and 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Non‑Existence of Grounds for Dismissal (One‑Day Unauthorised Absence)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to procedural defects in disciplinary action (security guard uniform and negligent performance of duties) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Procedural Defects in Disciplinary Action (Security Guard Uniform and Negligent Performance of Duties).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article