[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (working under the influence · side job).” Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1391 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-29 · Result: Employee’s claim fully upheld Key issue summary: a. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer dismissed the employee for disciplinary reasons, citing working under the influence of alcohol, leaving the workplace without permission, poor attendance and work attitude, and engaging in a side job without prior approval. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, and the matter was contested there. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether each ground for discipline was established and, in addition, whether the grounds that were found to be established were sufficient to justify dismissal, that is, whether the level of discipline (the severity of the sanction) was appropriate. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “In a situation where some misconduct such as working under the influence of alcohol, leaving the workplace without permission, poor attendance and work attitude, and engaging in a side job is established, but serious grounds such as false reporting are not established, whether it is lawful to proceed to the extreme measure of disciplinary dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that working under the influence of alcohol, leaving the workplace without permission, poor attendance and work attitude, and engaging in a side job without prior approval constituted violations of the work rules and thus grounds for discipline. On the other hand, it held that the failure to meet the target number of marketing emails sent amounted merely to negligence in faithfully performing duties and was insufficient to be regarded as non-compliance with a lawful work order or as false reporting. It also found that “insulting the representative” based on repeated tardiness could not readily be recognized as a ground for discipline. Given that the most serious ground asserted by the employer—false reporting—was not established, that the remaining acts of misconduct, although multiple, occurred relatively on a one-off basis and could not readily be seen as having caused substantial damage to the company, and in light of the general legal principle that disciplinary dismissal is permissible only where the employee bears such responsibility that continuation of the employment relationship is intolerable under social norms, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was an abuse of disciplinary authority, as the level of discipline—dismissal—was excessively severe in comparison with the established grounds for discipline, and therefore unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it must be clearly recognized that working under the influence of alcohol, leaving the workplace without permission, and engaging in a side job can in fact constitute violations of the work rules and thus grounds for discipline. However, even where there is poor work performance or failure to meet performance targets, this does not immediately translate into a just cause for dismissal unless it is objectively proven to amount to intentional neglect of duties or repeated insincere performance of work. In addition, where the employer alleges serious misconduct such as false reporting or insulting the representative, it is important at the Labor Relations Commission stage to actively contest whether the alleged facts actually occurred or are merely evaluative characterizations, and to specifically substantiate the course of one’s work performance and improvement efforts, as well as the existence or absence of actual damage suffered by the company. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the company’s standpoint, even when relying on grounds for discipline stipulated in the work rules, it must be borne in mind that for disciplinary dismissal to be justified, the existence of each individual act of misconduct must be objectively proven, and that dismissal must be examined for reasonableness under social norms in light of the nature, frequency, and duration of the misconduct and its impact on the company. In particular, when asserting serious grounds such as false reporting or defamation of the company, if dismissal is based on overly evaluative characterizations without having sufficiently secured evidence such as emails, reports, and instructions, those grounds may easily be rejected by the Labor Relations Commission. Furthermore, although matters such as working under the influence of alcohol, leaving the workplace without permission, and engaging in a side job can constitute grounds for discipline, it is advisable to first consider other disciplinary measures such as pay reduction or suspension, depending on the circumstances of occurrence, whether the conduct was isolated, whether prior warnings or guidance were given, and the extent of damage to the company. If the level of discipline is found to be excessive, the entire dismissal may be overturned as an unfair dismissal. Accordingly, companies should clearly establish standards for determining disciplinary measures in advance and, in actual cases, document the process of stepwise discipline and the provision of opportunities for improvement. Finally, in unfair dismissal and disciplinary dismissal disputes, not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the appropriateness of the level of discipline is a key issue. It is therefore important to thoroughly review similar decisions and case law and to design a response strategy from the early stages of the case with the assistance of professional labor consultants such as Labor Law Firm Law&. In practice, outcomes can vary significantly depending on how the structure of allegations and proof is designed in the Labor Relations Commission proceedings, and this should always be kept in mind. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline Working under the influence of alcohol, leaving the workplace without permission, poor attendance and work attitude, and engaging in a side job without prior approval constitute violations of Article 60 of the work rules and are recognized as grounds for discipline. However, the failure to meet the target number of marketing emails sent is merely negligence in faithfully performing duties and is insufficient to be regarded as non-compliance with a lawful work order or as false reporting, and “insulting the representative” due to repeated tardiness is not recognized as a ground for discipline. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Among the employee’s acts of misconduct, the ground for discipline that the employer regarded as most serious—false reporting—was not established, and the established acts of misconduct, although multiple, occurred relatively on a one-off basis, making it difficult to find that they caused damage to the company... 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline Working under the influence of alcohol, leaving the workplace without permission, poor attendance and work attitude, and engaging in a side job without prior approval constitute violations of Article 60 of the work rules and are recognized as grounds for discipline. However, the failure to meet the target number of marketing emails sent is merely negligence in faithfully performing duties and is insufficient to be regarded as non-compliance with a lawful work order or as false reporting, and “insulting the representative” due to repeated tardiness is not recognized as a ground for discipline. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Among the employee’s acts of misconduct, the ground for discipline that the employer regarded as most serious—false reporting—was not established, and the established acts of misconduct, although multiple, occurred relatively on a one-off basis, making it difficult to find that they caused damage to the company... [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Personnel Order (Cabin Crew’s SNS · YouTube Posts)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (working under the influence · side job), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work orders, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Personnel Order (Cabin Crew’s SNS · YouTube Posts)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (working under the influence · side job) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Working Under the Influence · Side Job).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article