[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (use of ice maker proceeds for staff dinner)” was resolved by revoking the first-instance decision. Decision date: 2026-07-01 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae95 Key issue summary: A. Existence of grounds for discipline It is clear that the act of conspiring with fellow employees to dispose of the company’s ice maker, a company asset, without authorization and using the proceeds to pay for a staff dinner constitutes grounds for discipline. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer imposed a three‑month suspension on an employee who, in collusion with colleagues, disposed of the company’s ice maker, a company asset, without authorization and used the proceeds to pay for a staff dinner. The employee challenged this as an unfair disciplinary action analogous to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Central Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the procedure, but held that the level of discipline was excessive and constituted an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority, and therefore partially upheld the employee’s claim. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is whether, although the grounds and procedure for discipline were legitimate, the three‑month suspension was so clearly disproportionate and unreasonable in light of social norms as to amount to an abuse of disciplinary discretion. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case noted that: the amount obtained by disposing of the unused ice maker was small and the entire amount was paid to the company; the employee performed work independently and the existence of a clear line of command and supervision in the approval process was doubtful; in the absence of any objective evidence that the employee in question had “instructed” the conduct, increasing the sanction from a two‑month suspension to a three‑month suspension, solely on the basis of a different assessment of the same factual circumstances, constituted an abuse of personnel discretion; while the employee who actually carried out the sale, kept the proceeds, and paid for the staff dinner with them had his sanction reduced from a one‑month suspension to a three‑month pay reduction, only this employee’s sanction was increased, despite there being no special additional grounds for discipline, which was inconsistent with the principle of equality; and the employee had no prior disciplinary record during 11 years of service. In light of these factors, the Commission held that, irrespective of the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the procedure, the three‑month suspension was grossly disproportionate and unreasonable under the principles of proportionality and equality, and thus constituted an unlawful personnel action that exceeded and abused the employer’s discretionary authority. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even where grounds for discipline are acknowledged, it should be borne in mind that an application for remedy may be filed with the Labor Relations Commission if the level of discipline is excessively severe compared to similar cases or to colleagues, and is out of balance in light of the employee’s work attitude and prior disciplinary record. In particular, even where the use of company assets is at issue, as in this case, it is important to actively argue and prove the unfairness of the sanction by comprehensively considering whether the damage has been remedied, the amount involved, the level of discipline imposed on co‑participants, length of service, and prior disciplinary history. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it must be noted that a disciplinary measure will not always be upheld merely because the grounds and procedure are proper; the level of discipline must also satisfy the principles of proportionality and equality. Where different levels of discipline are imposed on multiple employees involved in the same factual circumstances, the employer should prepare in advance objective materials and criteria that can explain differences in each employee’s role, position, and degree of misconduct, and should appropriately reflect favorable circumstances such as long service and a clean disciplinary record in determining the level of discipline. This Central Labor Relations Commission decision is a useful example of how the limits of disciplinary discretion are assessed in serious disciplinary cases analogous to “unfair dismissal.” It is advisable to consult with experts familiar with the structure of disciplinary assessment, such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to establish disciplinary standards and response strategies from the pre‑disciplinary stage. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which the grounds for discipline were acknowledged and no procedural defects were found, but the three‑month suspension was held to be excessive. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Existence of grounds for discipline It is clear that conspiring with fellow employees to dispose of the company’s ice maker, a company asset, without authorization and using the proceeds to pay for a staff dinner constitutes grounds for discipline. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline (1) The ice maker in question was not in use, the amount involved was small, and the entire amount was paid to the company; (2) The employee performed work independently, and it is difficult to regard him as being in a clear line of command and supervision within the approval process; (3) With respect to the same factual circumstances, merely altering the assessment and increasing the sanction from a “two‑month suspension” to a “three‑month suspension” without any objective evidence that the employee in this case “instructed” the conduct constitutes an improper exercise of personnel authority; (4) The employee who actually carried out the sale, kept the proceeds, and paid for the staff dinner had his sanction reduced from a “one‑month suspension” to a “three‑month pay reduction,” yet, despite there being no special reason such as additional grounds for discipline, only the employee in this case had his sanction increased, which is inconsistent with the principle of equality; (5) The employee in this case had never been disciplined once during 11 years of service. In light of these factors, the level of discipline lost its legitimacy and amounted to an abuse of discretionary authority. C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure There are no particular circumstances that would warrant finding any illegality in the disciplinary procedure. [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Disciplinary Measure (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management and Supervision)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Remedy Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (use of ice maker proceeds for staff dinner), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ The previous article, “‘Denial of Formation of Hiring Commitment (Oral Notice to Branch Manager)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (use of ice maker proceeds for staff dinner) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Use of Ice Maker Proceeds for Staff Dinner).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article