[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the initial decision was revoked on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (use of ice maker proceeds for staff dinner).” Decision-making body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae95 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-01 · Case type: Initial decision revoked Summary of key issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline It is clear that conspiring with fellow employees to dispose of the company’s ice maker, a corporate asset, without authorization and using the proceeds for a staff dinner constitutes grounds for discipline. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, the employee was disciplined for disposing of the company’s ice maker, a corporate asset, together with colleagues, and using the proceeds to pay for a staff dinner. The employer initially treated this conduct as a ground for discipline and decided on a two‑month suspension from duty. It then increased the disciplinary measure to a three‑month suspension on the premise that the employee had “instructed” the disposal of the ice maker. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair discipline, and the Central Labor Relations Commission rendered its decision. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “In circumstances where misconduct exists in that a company asset (ice maker) was disposed of and the proceeds used for a staff dinner, whether a three‑month suspension is a justified level of discipline, taking into account the degree of responsibility, whether any private benefit was obtained, and the existence of any relationship of instruction/supervision; and furthermore, whether this constitutes an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline, amounting to unfair dismissal (unfair discipline).” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case took into comprehensive consideration the following: the amount obtained by disposing of an unused ice maker was small, and the entire amount was paid back to the company so that the property loss was restored; although the employee did conspire with colleagues to commit the misconduct, the employee had been performing work independently and it was difficult to view the employee as being in a relationship of instruction/supervision within the approval line; despite the same factual circumstances, the employer raised the disciplinary level from a two‑month to a three‑month suspension solely on the changed assessment that the employee had given “instructions,” without any objective evidence of such “instruction,” which strongly suggests an abuse of personnel discretion; and considerations of parity with another individual who was actually at the center of executing the sale. As a result, while the act of disposing of the ice maker itself clearly constituted grounds for discipline, the Commission held that, in light of the fact that the misconduct was difficult to regard as a planned and organized profit‑seeking activity, that no personal gain was obtained, that the proceeds were intended for common use such as a staff dinner, and that the full amount had already been reimbursed, increasing the disciplinary measure to a three‑month suspension was markedly excessive by social standards and fell outside the permissible scope of disciplinary discretion, constituting an unfair exercise of managerial authority. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it must be clearly recognized that even if a company asset is used for a “staff dinner or snacks” or other common purpose, disposing of such asset without following formal procedures or obtaining approval can clearly constitute grounds for discipline. However, when disputing whether the level of discipline is excessive, it is important to fully explain to the Labor Relations Commission the specific circumstances, such as the amount involved, whether the proceeds were used for personal benefit, whether the loss was restored, the spontaneity or impulsiveness of the act, the division of roles among colleagues, and whether any instructions were given. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, grounds for discipline relating to the disposal and management of company assets should be clearly stipulated in the rules of employment. At the same time, when determining the actual level of discipline, the employer should comprehensively consider factors such as the planned nature of the misconduct, the amount involved, whether any personal benefit was obtained, whether the loss was restored, the employee’s position and any instruction/supervision relationship, and any prior disciplinary record. In particular, where the initially determined level of discipline is later increased, if no new facts of misconduct or clear evidence have emerged, there is a high risk that this will be deemed an abuse of disciplinary discretion. Accordingly, employers should systematically organize minutes of the disciplinary committee and supporting materials, and maintain consistency and fairness. In this regard, in cases where unfair dismissal, redundancy dismissal, or disputes over the level of discipline are anticipated, obtaining early advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law& on organizing the grounds for discipline and reviewing the criteria for disciplinary measures will be highly beneficial in preventing disputes. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence of grounds for discipline It is clear that conspiring with fellow employees to dispose of the company’s ice maker, a corporate asset, without authorization and using the proceeds for a staff dinner constitutes grounds for discipline. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline ① The ice maker had not been in use, the amount involved was small, and the entire amount was paid to the company; ② The employee had been performing work independently, and it is difficult to regard the employee as being in a relationship of instruction/supervision within the approval line; ③ Although the factual circumstances were identical, merely changing the assessment and increasing the disciplinary measure from a “two‑month suspension” to a “three‑month suspension” without any objective evidence that the employee in this case had given “instructions” constitutes an unfair exercise of managerial authority; ④ The person who actually carried out the sale … 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Existence of grounds for discipline It is clear that conspiring with fellow employees to dispose of the company’s ice maker, a corporate asset, without authorization and using the proceeds for a staff dinner constitutes grounds for discipline. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline ① The ice maker had not been in use, the amount involved was small, and the entire amount was paid to the company; ② The employee had been performing work independently, and it is difficult to regard the employee as being in a relationship of instruction/supervision within the approval line; ③ Although the factual circumstances were identical, merely changing the assessment and increasing the disciplinary measure from a “two‑month suspension” to a “three‑month suspension” without any objective evidence that the employee in this case had given “instructions” constitutes an unfair exercise of managerial authority; ④ The person who actually carried out the sale … / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Case on “No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Verbal Notice by Agency Manager)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Case on “Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)”’ – Date of decision: – Case type: Dismissal of application - ‘Unfair Dismissal Case on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (use of ice maker proceeds for staff dinner), violation of company policy · 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 Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Verbal Notice by Agency Manager)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (use of ice maker proceeds for staff dinner) can be found together under “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Use of Ice Maker Proceeds for Staff Dinner).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article