[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal (arbitrary change of working hours · unauthorized opening of grievance box).” Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1477 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-26 · Case Result: Dismissed Summary of Key Issues: … Taking into account that the employee changed the working hours and left the workplace, thereby causing a patient complaint, yet showed no remorse for their wrongdoing; and that, although not included in the grounds for discipline, the employee arbitrarily opened the grievance box using tools such as tweezers and removed the suggestion documents stored inside without authorization, the Commission found that, from the employer’s perspective, it was difficult to continue the employment relationship under generally accepted social norms, and therefore the dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of disciplinary authority. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case arose from an incident in which an employee working at a hospital unilaterally changed their working hours and left the workplace, leading to a patient complaint. In addition, it became an issue that the employee had arbitrarily opened the grievance box using tools such as tweezers and removed the suggestion documents stored inside without authorization. When the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on this basis, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, but the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issues in this case are whether acts such as “arbitrarily changing working hours, leaving the workplace, and the unauthorized opening of a grievance box and removal of documents” constitute misconduct so serious that, under generally accepted social norms, it is difficult to continue the employment relationship, and whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedure in circumstances where the employee was given the opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and present explanations. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case noted that the employee unilaterally changed their working hours and left the workplace, causing a patient complaint; that even thereafter the employee did not show any attitude of remorse or acceptance of their wrongdoing; and that, although not expressly stated in the written grounds for discipline, the employee forcibly opened the grievance box using tools and removed the internal suggestion documents without authorization. In light of the nature of the workplace as a medical institution, the need to protect patients and to secure trust in the internal grievance-handling system, and the impact on corporate order, the Commission found that there was ample room to conclude that the employer would find it difficult to continue the employment relationship with the employee. With respect to the disciplinary procedure, the Commission found that the disciplinary committee was convened in accordance with the procedures set out in the work rules; that the employee actually appeared before the disciplinary committee and was given an opportunity to present explanations; and that no material defects were revealed in the process regarding notification of the alleged disciplinary offenses or the opportunity to explain. On this basis, it held that there was no abuse of disciplinary authority or procedural illegality. Ultimately, the Commission held that, considering the seriousness of the grounds for discipline and the possibility of recurrence, the characteristics of the workplace, and the employee’s attitude, the dismissal could not readily be regarded as a measure that was manifestly unreasonable under generally accepted social norms, and that the disciplinary procedure had been lawfully conducted. Accordingly, it found that the dismissal was not unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is necessary to bear in mind that unilaterally changing the employer’s work instructions, prescribed working hours, or workplace, or leaving the workplace without authorization, can go beyond a mere attendance issue and constitute grounds for disciplinary dismissal. In particular, in workplaces such as medical institutions where patient safety and continuity of service are critical, even a single instance of leaving the workplace may directly lead to patient complaints and damage to trust, and thus may be assessed as warranting a severe disciplinary sanction. Furthermore, acts such as the unauthorized opening of devices that the company operates on the premise of confidentiality—such as grievance boxes, reporting boxes, or personnel document boxes—or the removal of internal documents, may be evaluated as serious breaches of confidentiality and disruption of order, even if done under the pretext of “wanting to know about company issues.” If you are required to appear before a disciplinary committee, frankly acknowledging the facts and clearly expressing remorse can be an important factor in the determination of the level of discipline. Therefore, rather than responding emotionally, you should consult with an expert to devise an appropriate defense strategy. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to clearly define in the work rules that acts such as violations of working hours and workplace, unauthorized absence from the workplace, and unauthorized opening of internal grievance-handling systems and removal of documents constitute grounds for discipline. In particular, in medical institutions and care facilities, it is necessary to specify in detail the provisions and disciplinary standards so that attendance violations related to patient or user safety can be evaluated as serious misconduct. In terms of disciplinary procedure, it is important to conduct the basic steps—such as convening the disciplinary committee, notifying the employee of attendance, informing them of the alleged disciplinary offenses, and providing an opportunity to explain—in accordance with the work rules and personnel regulations, and to preserve evidence such as minutes and notices. Since the Labor Relations Commission and the courts consider not only the seriousness of the misconduct but also compliance with procedures when determining the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal, it is helpful for dispute prevention to standardize the disciplinary process with advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Progress of the Procedure … Taking into account that the employee changed the working hours and left the workplace, thereby causing a patient complaint, yet showed no remorse for their wrongdoing; and that, although not included in the grounds for discipline, the employee arbitrarily opened the grievance box using tools such as tweezers and removed the suggestion documents stored inside without authorization, the Commission found that, from the employer’s perspective, it was difficult to continue the employment relationship under generally accepted social norms, and therefore the dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of disciplinary authority. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure: The disciplinary procedure was conducted in compliance with the work rules, and the employee attended the disciplinary committee and had a sufficient opportunity to explain; therefore, no procedural defects were recognized. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings … Taking into account that the employee changed the working hours and left the workplace, thereby causing a patient complaint, yet showed no remorse for their wrongdoing; and that, although not included in the grounds for discipline, the employee arbitrarily opened the grievance box using tools such as tweezers and removed the suggestion documents stored inside without authorization, the Commission found that, from the employer’s perspective, it was difficult to continue the employment relationship under generally accepted social norms, and therefore the dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of disciplinary authority. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure: The disciplinary procedure was conducted in compliance with the work rules, and the employee attended the disciplinary committee and had a sufficient opportunity to explain; therefore, no procedural defects were recognized. / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld - “‘Existence of Dismissal (Refusal of Alternative Site Offer by Employee Restricted from Site Access)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal (arbitrary change of working hours · unauthorized opening of grievance box), 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 one of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Refusal of Alternative Site Offer by Employee Restricted from Site Access)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal (arbitrary change of working hours · unauthorized opening of grievance box) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal (Arbitrary Change of Working Hours · Unauthorized Opening of Grievance Box).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article