[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (changing passwords and deleting data on a work PC).” Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1304 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-30 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of key issues: … Of the disciplinary grounds, a total of five—such as obstruction of business due to changing the computer password and unauthorized removal of work-related data—were found to be established, while the remaining three grounds were not. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: (i) The misconduct of the employee is serious even on the basis of the established grounds alone; (ii) considering that the employee caused serious disruption to the employer’s business by changing the password of the work computer or deleting work-related data, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is not excessive… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, the employee was subjected to disciplinary dismissal by the employer after unilaterally changing the password of a work computer and deleting or removing work-related data. The employee then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission did not recognize some of the alleged grounds for discipline; however, it found that five acts of misconduct, including obstruction of business due to changing the computer password and unauthorized removal of work-related data, were established. The Commission then focused its analysis on whether dismissal was excessively severe in light of those grounds, and whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedure. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are: (i) whether, where an employee causes serious disruption to the employer’s business by changing the password of a work computer and deleting or removing data without authorization, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal that is manifestly unreasonable by social standards; and (ii) whether the employee was afforded a sufficient opportunity to explain and defend himself or herself during the disciplinary process. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that five of the disciplinary grounds—such as changing the computer password and deleting or removing work-related data without authorization—were established, and that such misconduct caused serious disruption to the employer’s business operations and severely undermined corporate order and the relationship of trust. It further held that, even if the remaining three disciplinary grounds were not established, the seriousness of the misconduct was still considerable based on the established grounds alone. Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as manifestly unreasonable by social standards, that the level of discipline was not excessive, and that the dismissal did not constitute an unfair dismissal. In addition, the Commission found that the employee had been given a sufficient opportunity to explain his or her position prior to the imposition of discipline, and that the grounds for discipline and the legal basis therefor had been notified in writing. On this basis, it concluded that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. Referring to the Supreme Court’s criteria for assessing the appropriateness of disciplinary severity—namely, proportionality between the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary measure, the impact on corporate order, and the extent of the employer’s loss and disruption to business—the Commission held that there had been no abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that unilaterally changing the password of a work computer or deleting or removing data without the company’s approval may be evaluated not as a mere mistake but as “obstruction of business and disruption of corporate order,” and may even justify disciplinary dismissal. Even if some of the alleged grounds for discipline are not upheld, the Labor Relations Commission may still decline to find unfair dismissal if the remaining grounds alone are sufficiently serious. Therefore, at the initial response stage, it is crucial to present as much evidence as possible regarding the facts, motives, and any efforts to remedy the damage. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the rules of employment and information security regulations matters such as management of work PC passwords, prohibitions on deleting or removing data, and the level of discipline for violations. When an incident actually occurs, the employer should secure evidence—such as logs, emails, and reports—so that the circumstances of the misconduct and the extent of disruption to business can be specifically proven. In addition, when convening a disciplinary committee, the employer should ensure procedural fairness by giving the employee a sufficient opportunity to explain, and by notifying the grounds for discipline and the legal basis in writing. Doing so will increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will find both the level of discipline and the procedure to be proper. To prevail in this type of case, it is important to have a precise understanding of: (i) the criteria for assessing proportionality between the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary measure; (ii) the legal principles applicable where only some of multiple alleged grounds for discipline are upheld; and (iii) recent case law trends on the lawfulness of disciplinary procedures. It is also essential to systematically organize and prove the facts in line with these principles. Where a dispute before the Labor Relations Commission or a collective or unfair dismissal dispute is anticipated, it is advisable to seek advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the early stages to design an appropriate response strategy. 2. Matters Determined A. Case Overview and Procedural History … Of the disciplinary grounds, a total of five—such as obstruction of business due to changing the computer password and unauthorized removal of work-related data—were found to be established, while the remaining three grounds were not. B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline (i) The employee’s misconduct is serious even on the basis of the established grounds alone; (ii) considering that the employee caused serious disruption to the employer’s business by changing the password of the work computer or deleting work-related data, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is not excessive. C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure As the employee was given a sufficient opportunity to explain his or her position, and it was confirmed that the grounds for discipline and the legal basis therefor were notified in writing, there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … Of the disciplinary grounds, a total of five—such as obstruction of business due to changing the computer password and unauthorized removal of work-related data—were found to be established, while the remaining three grounds were not. B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline (i) The employee’s misconduct is serious even on the basis of the established grounds alone; (ii) considering that the employee caused serious disruption to the employer’s business by changing the password of the work computer or deleting work-related data, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is not excessive. C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure As the employee was given a sufficient opportunity to explain his or her position, and it was confirmed that the grounds for discipline and the legal basis therefor were notified in writing, there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case outcome: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (changing passwords and deleting data on a work PC), 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Credit Examination)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (changing passwords and deleting data on a work PC) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Changing Passwords and Deleting Data on a Work PC).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article