[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (working under the influence / engaging in side work).” Decision date: 2026-06-29 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해1391 Key issues in summary: A. Existence of grounds for discipline Working under the influence, leaving the workplace without permission, poor attendance and work attitude, and engaging in side work without prior approval were found to violate Article 60 of the Rules of Employment and thus constituted grounds for discipline. However, the failure to meet the target number of sales mailing dispatches was deemed mere negligence in faithfully performing duties, insufficient to be regarded as non-compliance with a lawful work order or as false reporting, and repeated tardiness allegedly amounting to “insulting the CEO” was not recognized as a ground for discipline. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline Among the employee’s acts of misconduct… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer imposed a suspension on the employee on the grounds of working under the influence, leaving the workplace without permission, poor attendance and work attitude, and engaging in side work without prior approval. The employee then filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the suspension was an unfair disciplinary measure equivalent to an unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure, the scope of recognition of the grounds for discipline, and whether the level of discipline (suspension) was reasonable in light of social norms. Like unfair dismissal cases, this matter centered on the limits of disciplinary severity and is a representative case in which the Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employer’s exercise of discretionary disciplinary authority exceeded the bounds of legitimacy. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where only some acts of misconduct—working under the influence, leaving the workplace without permission, poor attendance and work attitude, and engaging in side work without prior approval—are recognized, the imposition of suspension is, in light of those grounds, so excessively severe by social standards that it constitutes a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that, among the various grounds for discipline asserted by the employer, working under the influence, leaving the workplace without permission, poor attendance and work attitude, and engaging in side work without prior approval did violate the Rules of Employment and thus constituted grounds for discipline. On the other hand, the failure to meet the target number of sales mailing dispatches was deemed mere negligence in the performance of duties, making it difficult to view as non-compliance with a lawful work order or as false reporting, and the alleged “insulting the CEO” based on repeated tardiness likewise could not readily be recognized as a ground for discipline. Given that the “false reporting” allegation, which the employer itself characterized as the most serious ground among the employee’s acts of misconduct, was not established, that the remaining recognized acts of misconduct, although multiple, were relatively one-off in nature and did not appear to have caused concrete damage to the company, and that the disciplinary procedure itself was lawfully conducted in compliance with the procedures set forth in the Rules of Employment—such as notice of the convening of the personnel committee, provision of an opportunity to explain, and guidance on the possibility of appeal—the panel held that, notwithstanding the procedural lawfulness, the suspension was markedly excessive in light of the degree of misconduct and therefore constituted a deviation and abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority under social norms. Ultimately, although this case did not involve a dismissal, the suspension, as a severe disciplinary measure, was found to be disproportionate to the established grounds for discipline and thus unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is important to distinguish the factual circumstances and legal character of each alleged ground for discipline and to clearly contest which items fall within the disciplinary grounds under the Rules of Employment and which amount only to simple negligence or performance deficiency. In particular, if the core allegation of misconduct that the employer claims to be the most serious is not established, it is effective to focus argument and proof on whether, based solely on the remaining grounds, the level of discipline imposed (suspension, dismissal, etc.) is excessively severe by social standards. Moreover, even where the disciplinary procedure is lawful, if the level of discipline is excessive, the Labor Relations Commission may correct it as unfair discipline. Accordingly, as with applications for relief from unfair dismissal, employees should actively consider utilizing relief procedures in relation to disciplinary measures such as suspension or pay reduction. It is practically helpful to structurally organize the legal evaluation of the grounds for discipline and the excessive nature of the disciplinary severity through a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when formulating grounds for discipline, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between mere underperformance or negligence and serious acts of misconduct such as “violation of a lawful work order” or “false reporting,” and to select a level of discipline that reasonably corresponds to each ground in accordance with the Rules of Employment and the internal standards on disciplinary severity. In particular, when choosing severe disciplinary measures such as suspension or dismissal, the employer should comprehensively consider the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, its repetitiveness, the damage caused to the company, and the nature of the employee’s duties, and then verify whether the balance of the measure is such that it would be acceptable under social norms even from an external viewpoint. In addition, while strictly maintaining procedural fairness—such as giving notice of the convening of the personnel committee, providing an opportunity to explain, and notifying the outcome of discipline and the possibility of appeal—it is important, for the prevention of disputes, to pre‑examine whether “the level of discipline remains appropriate even if the core misconduct is not recognized.” Employers are advised to reflect in their HR regulations and disciplinary practice the standards of “appropriateness of disciplinary severity” required by the decisions of the Labor Relations Commission and the courts. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the disciplinary procedure was found lawful, but only some grounds for discipline—such as poor attendance and work attitude—were recognized, and the level of discipline (suspension) was held to be excessive in light of the established misconduct and therefore unfair. 3. Summary of Findings A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline Working under the influence, leaving the workplace without permission, poor attendance and work attitude, and engaging in side work without prior approval were recognized as grounds for discipline as they violated Article 60 of the Rules of Employment. However, the failure to meet the target number of sales mailing dispatches was deemed mere negligence in faithfully performing duties, insufficient to be regarded as non-compliance with a lawful work order or as false reporting, and the alleged “insulting the CEO” based on repeated tardiness was not recognized as a ground for discipline. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline The ground for discipline that the employer considered most serious—false reporting—was not established, and the recognized acts of misconduct, while multiple, were relatively one-off in nature, making it difficult to conclude that they caused damage to the company. Accordingly, the level of discipline was found to be markedly unreasonable by social standards and thus a deviation and abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority. c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure The employer notified the employee of the scheduled convening of the personnel committee, provided the employee with an opportunity to explain, resolved on the discipline through the personnel committee, and informed the employee that an appeal against the disciplinary disposition was possible. Therefore, the disciplinary procedure was found to be lawful. [See More Related Decisions] - “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Supervision and Management)” Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Institution)” Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Relief Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)” Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (working under the influence / side work), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Personnel Order (Cabin Crew SNS / YouTube Posts),” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (working under the influence / side work) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Working Under the Influence / Side Work).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article