[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “other punishment (warning in group chat room).” Adjudicating Body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae425 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-01 · Case Result: Fully Upheld Summary of Key Issues: A. Whether a warning is subject to a remedial order Although a warning does not fall under the enumerated types of disciplinary action, it constitutes “other punishment” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act as it has the nature of a disadvantageous sanction against the employee. It is therefore appropriate to regard it as subject to a remedial order. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, after the employee posted an opinion in the company’s group chat room, the company demanded that the employee submit a written explanation and statement of reasons. When the employee refused, the employer imposed a “warning.” The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy on the ground that the warning constituted unfair dismissal, etc., and the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, in Case No. 2026Buhae425, rendered a decision fully upholding the employee’s claim. The issue in this case was whether “warning” is included in “other punishment” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and whether a warning based on posting an opinion in a group chat room and refusing to submit a written explanation and statement of reasons is justified. Ⅱ. Issues The Labor Relations Commission examined two core issues in this case. First, whether a “warning,” which is not included among the types of disciplinary action expressly stipulated in the disciplinary rules, constitutes “other punishment” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act and thus may be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Second, whether the employee’s act of posting an opinion in the group chat room and the subsequent refusal to submit a written explanation and statement of reasons, as requested by the company, constitute justifiable grounds for a warning. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The adjudicating panel held that even if a warning is not listed as a type of disciplinary action in the rules of employment, it still constitutes “other punishment” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, as long as it has a punitive character as a disadvantageous sanction against the employee. The panel further found that, absent special circumstances, posting an opinion in a group chat room is an act of expression and communication by the employee; that it had not been proven that the content of the post seriously infringed corporate order or work discipline; that the request for a written explanation and statement of reasons had been made when the underlying misconduct had not been clearly established; and that, under existing precedents and legal principles, mere non-compliance with a null or unjust measure cannot easily constitute a ground for disciplinary action. On these grounds, the panel concluded that the employee’s posting of an opinion and refusal to submit a written explanation and statement of reasons did not constitute justifiable grounds for a warning; that a warning is a sanction that may serve as a basis for future disciplinary measures or other personnel disadvantages; and that the employee’s conduct could not be regarded, under social norms, as misconduct warranting punishment. Accordingly, the warning in this case was held to be unjust. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should bear in mind that not only severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal or suspension, but also warnings that may cause personnel disadvantages can be challenged before the Labor Relations Commission as “unfair dismissal, etc.” If the opinion expressed in a group chat room concerns company policies or the working environment, and if the content does not clearly amount to insult or defamation by stating false facts that seriously undermine corporate order, employees may actively assert the unfairness of a disciplinary warning imposed merely for expressing a critical opinion. Furthermore, when the company demands a written explanation or statement of reasons on the ground of alleged misconduct, and the underlying facts are unclear or the measure itself appears unjust, employees should remember that simple non-compliance does not automatically constitute a ground for disciplinary action. However, it is important to objectively organize and preserve evidence in anticipation of future disputes, such as screenshots of the chat room, the contents of instructions, and the course of responses. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, personnel and disciplinary systems should be designed on the premise that a “warning” may be evaluated as “other punishment” under the Labor Standards Act and thus become the subject of an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission. The rules of employment and personnel regulations should clearly define the concept, grounds, procedures, and effects of warnings (including their linkage with performance evaluations, promotions, and the determination of disciplinary level). Where a warning in practice functions as a disadvantageous sanction equivalent to disciplinary action, stricter standards and procedures should be applied. In addition, expressions of opinion in a group chat room are highly likely to be protected as part of employees’ communication and grievance-raising process. It is therefore risky to impose a disciplinary warning immediately without carefully examining the content, manner of expression, and impact. The practice of demanding a written explanation or statement of reasons when the facts of the alleged misconduct are unclear, and then treating non-submission as an independent ground for disciplinary action, may later be found to constitute unjust punishment by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. Employers should therefore ensure that fact-finding and procedural fairness are sufficiently secured. In this regard, where disputes concerning unfair dismissal and disciplinary measures are anticipated, it is advisable to consult from the early stages of the case with a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to formulate a response strategy that reflects the concept of “punishment” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and the relevant case law. (© Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&) 2. Matters Adjudicated A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Whether a warning is subject to a remedial order Although a warning does not fall under the enumerated types of disciplinary action, it constitutes “other punishment” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act as it has the nature of a disadvantageous sanction against the employee. It is therefore appropriate to regard it as subject to a remedial order. B. Whether the warning was justified The employee’s act of posting an opinion in the group chat room and the subsequent refusal to submit a written explanation and statement of reasons do not constitute justifiable grounds for a warning. Accordingly, the warning imposed on the employee is deemed unjust. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether a warning is subject to a remedial order Although a warning does not fall under the enumerated types of disciplinary action, it constitutes “other punishment” under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act as it has the nature of a disadvantageous sanction against the employee. It is therefore appropriate to regard it as subject to a remedial order. B. Whether the warning was justified The employee’s act of posting an opinion in the group chat room and the subsequent refusal to submit a written explanation and statement of reasons do not constitute justifiable grounds for a warning. Accordingly, the warning imposed on the employee is deemed unjust. / [More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract (3-Year Fixed-Term)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial Decision Maintained [Tags] Unfair dismissal, other punishment (warning in group chat room), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Denial of Forced Resignation (Removal from Team Chat Room)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to other punishment (warning in group chat room) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Other Punishment (Warning in Group Chat Room).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article