[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (violations of standard work methods by an internet after‑service technician).” Date of decision: 2026-08-07 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae1983 Key issues in summary: A. Existence of grounds for discipline: Violations of the standard work methods constitute a breach of the company’s rules of employment and were therefore recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline. However, customer complaints arising from reasons such as TV screen not displaying were not recognized as grounds for discipline, as these were not considered to fall within the scope of duties of a worker in charge of internet installation and after‑service. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: (i) The worker received a total of seven cautions or warnings after 2024-12-24, indicating repeated misconduct, … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker responsible for internet installation and after‑service was given a seven‑day suspension as a disciplinary measure on the grounds that he had performed work in violation of the standard work methods. The worker applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the suspension was an unfair disciplinary action equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the legality of the disciplinary procedures, and held that the employer’s disciplinary action was justified. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where only part of the disciplinary grounds based on violations of the standard work methods is recognized, the seven‑day suspension is, even in light of the worker’s history of repeated misconduct, so manifestly lacking in reasonableness by social norms as to be considered an abuse of discretion, and whether any procedural defects in the disciplinary process render the action an unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that the violations of the standard work methods constituted violations of the company’s rules of employment and thus amounted to legitimate grounds for discipline; that customer complaints arising from TV screen output failure did not fall within the ordinary scope of duties of this worker and therefore were not recognized as grounds for discipline; and that the worker had repeatedly engaged in misconduct, having received seven cautions or warnings since 2024-12-24, and had neither acknowledged his problems nor shown any intention to improve during the disciplinary committee proceedings. In light of the above, the Commission held that, even if some of the grounds for discipline were not accepted, it was difficult to view the seven‑day suspension, based on the remaining grounds alone, as falling outside the employer’s discretionary authority or as being manifestly unreasonable by social norms. It also found no procedural defects, as a disciplinary committee was convened, the worker was given an opportunity to present his explanation, and the result was notified in writing. Accordingly, the Commission held that the disciplinary action was not unfair. The Labor Relations Commission reaffirmed the established judicial principle that, in determining the legitimacy of disciplinary action, it focuses on whether a balance between the discipline and its grounds is maintained in light of social norms, by comprehensively considering the content and nature of the misconduct, the characteristics of the duties, any prior disciplinary history, and the objective of maintaining workplace discipline through the disciplinary measure. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s perspective, it should be noted that even if some of the grounds for discipline are not upheld, the level of discipline may still be found justified based solely on the remaining grounds. In particular, where prior cautions or warnings have accumulated, the same level of violation may be assessed more severely, so it is important to correct one’s conduct at an early stage to prevent even minor disciplinary actions from recurring. In addition, when appearing before a disciplinary committee, a worker’s attitude in acknowledging his or her shortcomings and presenting a concrete plan for improvement can be an important factor in the assessment of disciplinary severity. It is therefore advisable to combine the exercise of one’s right to defense with a sincere and forthcoming explanation. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly link work manuals such as standard work methods to the rules of employment or disciplinary regulations, and to sufficiently notify workers in advance that violations thereof may result in disciplinary action. With respect to the level of discipline, employers should keep comprehensive records of prior disciplinary history, the repetitiveness of the misconduct, and the worker’s attitude during the explanation process, so that they can substantiate that the discipline is not excessively harsh by social norms. Moreover, procedural elements such as notice of the convening of a disciplinary committee, provision of an opportunity to explain, and written notification of the outcome can prevent disputes at relatively low cost. Employers should therefore re‑examine the disciplinary procedures set out in their rules of employment and collective agreements, and regularly check whether actual practices are consistent with those rules. This case clearly illustrates that, in disputes over unfair dismissal and discipline, the overall legitimacy of the disciplinary action can be maintained even if only part of the grounds for discipline is upheld, depending on the seriousness and repetitiveness of the remaining grounds and compliance with procedural requirements. To prevent unfair dismissal disputes, both workers and employers should understand in advance the legal principles governing grounds for discipline, disciplinary severity, and procedures, and should organize the specific facts of each case in line with those principles. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. 02.6741.0002) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which only part of the grounds for discipline was upheld, but the level of discipline was found appropriate based on the recognized grounds alone, and no procedural defects were found, leading to a determination that the disciplinary action was justified. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline Violations of the standard work methods constitute violations of the company’s rules of employment and are therefore recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline. However, customer complaints arising from reasons such as TV screen not displaying are not considered to fall within the scope of duties of a worker in charge of internet installation and after‑service, and thus are not recognized as grounds for discipline. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline (1) The worker repeatedly engaged in misconduct, having received a total of seven cautions or warnings after 2024-12-24; and (2) the worker neither acknowledged his problems nor showed any intention to improve at the disciplinary committee. In light of these factors, it is difficult to view the seven‑day suspension as an abuse of discretionary authority. c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures A disciplinary committee was convened, the worker was given an opportunity to present his explanation, and the result of the disciplinary action was notified in writing. Accordingly, the Commission found no defects in the disciplinary procedures. [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Supervision and Management)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (violations of standard work methods by an internet after‑service technician), violation of company policy · non‑compliance with work instructions, disciplinary dismissal, 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. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Forced Resignation (Shopping Mall Appreciation Message)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (violations of standard work methods by an internet after‑service technician) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Violations of Standard Work Methods by an Internet After‑Service Technician).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article