[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (management responsibility for unauthorized substitute lessons).” Decision date: 2026-06-26 · Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae433 Summary of key issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline Although the employee, as the general team leader of the Recreational Sports Team, held a position bearing responsibility for the management and supervision of subordinate staff, unauthorized substitute lessons nevertheless occurred. This constitutes recognition of the employee’s management and supervisory responsibility and falls under the grounds for discipline set out in the employer’s rules of employment and personnel regulations. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, an employee serving as the general team leader of the Recreational Sports Team was disciplined in connection with unauthorized substitute lessons conducted by a subordinate employee and then filed a relief application with the Labor Relations Commission challenging the appropriateness of the level of discipline. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined separately (i) the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the procedure, and (ii) the reasonableness of the severity of the disciplinary measure. It ultimately held that, while discipline itself was permissible, the level of discipline was excessive and therefore unfair. Through this case, Labor Law Firm Law& again confirmed how important the level of disciplinary severity is as an independent issue, separate from the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the procedure. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is whether, where management and supervisory responsibility is recognized for the general team leader of the Recreational Sports Team, the imposition of a reprimand, even though the leader was not the person who directly committed the misconduct, constitutes “excessive disciplinary severity” that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms. Furthermore, the core point of contention was whether the unfairness of a disciplinary disposition can be recognized solely on the basis of the level of disciplinary severity, in circumstances where the grounds for discipline are established and the disciplinary procedure is lawful. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that: the employee, as the general team leader of the Recreational Sports Team, had a responsibility to manage and supervise so as to prevent unauthorized substitute lessons from occurring; given that unauthorized substitute lessons did in fact occur, the employee’s management and supervisory responsibility constitutes grounds for discipline; and the employer complied with the disciplinary procedures, including prior notice and an opportunity to explain in accordance with the personnel regulations. On this basis, it held that the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the procedure were established. At the same time, the panel took into account that the employee was not the direct perpetrator of the misconduct involving unauthorized substitute lessons, that there was no evidence the employee had prior knowledge of or approved the misconduct, that the employee carried out necessary follow-up measures such as investigation and reporting after becoming aware of the facts, and that, although there was a substantial difference between the perpetrator and the employee as the immediate supervisor in terms of degree of involvement and gravity of responsibility, this difference did not appear to have been sufficiently reflected in the level of discipline. As a result, the panel found that the reprimand was a disciplinary measure that lost balance relative to the degree of the grounds for discipline and, as such, had lost its reasonableness in light of social norms. It held that this fell under what the Supreme Court refers to as “discipline that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms,” that is, an abuse of the disciplinary authority’s discretion. Accordingly, it determined that the dismissal in this case was unfair because the level of disciplinary severity was excessive, even though the grounds for discipline and the procedure were lawful. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even where some grounds for discipline are recognized and the procedure is lawful, you should bear in mind that you may still apply for relief to the Labor Relations Commission if the level of discipline is excessive in light of the nature and degree of the misconduct and your own degree of involvement. In particular, where you did not directly commit the misconduct and only your management and supervisory responsibility is at issue, it is important to carefully organize specific facts such as whether you had prior knowledge, whether you gave approval, and what follow-up measures you took, and to focus your challenge on the imbalance in the level of discipline. In addition, if the level of discipline imposed on you is significantly heavier than that imposed on other employees involved in the same incident, there is ample room to argue a violation of fairness and an abuse of discretion under the Supreme Court’s standard of “discipline that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms.” Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, it is not sufficient merely to establish grounds for discipline and comply with procedures. You must determine the level of discipline by comprehensively considering the content and nature of the misconduct, the employee’s position and role, the actual degree of involvement, follow-up measures, and differences in responsibility compared to other persons involved. Even where internal guidelines on disciplinary severity exist, you should not apply them mechanically; rather, you should examine in each individual case whether the balance maintained is acceptable in light of social norms. In particular, when disciplining managers and supervisors, if you impose the same or a more severe penalty than that imposed on the employee who directly committed the misconduct, there is a high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find an abuse of discretion. You should therefore design differentiated levels of discipline according to the hierarchy of responsibility. It is advisable to record this process of consideration in detail in documents such as the minutes of the disciplinary committee, so that you are prepared to prove the legitimacy of the level of discipline in any subsequent dispute. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was held that, although grounds for discipline were established and the disciplinary procedure was lawful, the level of disciplinary severity was excessive and therefore unfair. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Existence of grounds for discipline Even though the employee, as the general team leader of the Recreational Sports Team, held a position bearing responsibility for the management and supervision of subordinate staff, unauthorized substitute lessons nevertheless occurred. This constitutes recognition of the employee’s management and supervisory responsibility and falls under the grounds for discipline set out in the employer’s rules of employment and personnel regulations. B. Appropriateness of the level of disciplinary severity Taking into account that the employee, as the immediate supervisor, was not the perpetrator of the misconduct involving unauthorized substitute lessons and there is no confirmed fact that the employee had prior knowledge of or approved the misconduct; that, after becoming aware of the facts, the employee took follow-up measures such as necessary investigation and reporting; and that, although there is a difference in the degree of involvement and gravity of responsibility with respect to the misconduct, this difference does not appear to have been sufficiently reflected in the level of discipline, the reprimand is deemed to be a disciplinary measure that has lost balance relative to the degree of the grounds for discipline and, as such, has lost its reasonableness in light of social norms. It is therefore determined to have exceeded the limits of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority. C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure The employer, in accordance with the detailed enforcement rules of the personnel regulations, notified the employee in advance of the convening of the personnel committee, specifying the grounds for discipline, and granted the employee an opportunity to explain. In response to the employee’s request for review, the employer convened a re-examination personnel committee, at which the employee was present and made statements, and notified the employee of the result of the re-examination in writing. In light of these facts, the employer is deemed to have complied with the disciplinary procedures. [See More Related Decisions] - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (management responsibility for unauthorized substitute lessons), disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary action), 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 in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Misunderstanding as to Existence of Dismissal (Interview with Head of Nutrition Department)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (management responsibility for unauthorized substitute lessons) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Management Responsibility for Unauthorized Substitute Lessons).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article