This case concerns a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (violation of standard work methods by an internet after-sales technician).” Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1983 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-07 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of key issues: a. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case concerns the lawfulness of a seven-day suspension imposed on a worker in charge of internet installation and after-sales service, which was contested before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The worker was disciplined for violating standard work methods and for a customer complaint arising from a TV screen not displaying properly. Arguing that both the grounds for discipline and the level of discipline were unfair, the worker filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are whether a violation of the standard work methods applied to an internet installation/after-sales technician constitutes a legitimate ground for discipline, and whether, in circumstances where there is a history of repeated cautions and warnings, a seven-day suspension amounts to an abuse of the employer’s discretion in determining disciplinary severity and thus constitutes unfair discipline. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The adjudicating panel in this case found that the violation of the standard work methods constituted a breach of the company’s work rules and therefore amounted to a valid ground for discipline. On the other hand, it held that the customer complaint arising from the TV screen not displaying properly fell outside the normal scope of duties of an internet installation and after-sales technician and therefore could not readily be recognized as a ground for discipline. It also noted that the worker had repeatedly engaged in misconduct, receiving cautions and warnings on seven occasions since 2024.12.24., and that he neither acknowledged his shortcomings nor showed any willingness to improve during the disciplinary committee proceedings. The panel further found that there was in fact no dismissal in this case, and that only the seven-day suspension was at issue. Even if some of the grounds for discipline were not upheld, considering the nature and repetition of the remaining misconduct and the worker’s attitude at the time of discipline, the panel concluded that a seven-day suspension could not be regarded as excessively severe by social standards. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that company-prescribed work standards such as standard work methods and work manuals can be linked to work rules and codes of conduct and thereby constitute grounds for discipline. In addition, if past cautions and warnings accumulate, even relatively minor subsequent violations may justify more severe disciplinary measures such as suspension. Accordingly, it is crucial to clearly demonstrate a willingness to improve and efforts to correct one’s behavior so that even minor disciplinary actions are not repeated. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly document work standards such as standard work methods and to link them with work rules or personnel regulations, specifying disciplinary grounds in concrete terms. To secure the legitimacy of disciplinary severity, employers should systematically record and organize the nature and frequency of misconduct, any prior disciplinary history, and the employee’s attitude in explaining himself before the disciplinary committee. Even where the measure is not a severe sanction such as dismissal for managerial reasons, but rather suspension or wage reduction, internal disciplinary standards should be operated in a balanced manner so that the sanctions do not become excessively harsh by social standards. Decisions such as this provide important criteria for delineating the scope of recognition of disciplinary grounds and the limits of disciplinary severity in unfair dismissal and disciplinary cases. When similar issues arise, it is advisable to seek advice from experts with extensive practical experience before the Labor Relations Commission, such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Adjudicated a. Case Overview and Procedural History a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline A violation of the standard work methods constitutes a breach of the company’s work rules and is therefore recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline. However, a customer complaint arising from reasons such as the TV screen not displaying properly is difficult to regard as falling within the scope of duties of a worker responsible for internet installation and after-sales service, and thus is not recognized as a ground for discipline. b. Appropriateness of Disciplinary Severity ① The worker repeatedly engaged in misconduct, receiving cautions or warnings on a total of seven occasions after 2024. 12. 24.; ② considering this and the fact that the worker did not acknowledge his shortcomings or show any willingness to improve during the disciplinary committee proceedings, the seven-day suspension as a disciplinary measure was an exercise of discretion that … 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline A violation of the standard work methods constitutes a breach of the company’s work rules and is therefore recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline. However, a customer complaint arising from reasons such as the TV screen not displaying properly is difficult to regard as falling within the scope of duties of a worker responsible for internet installation and after-sales service, and thus is not recognized as a ground for discipline. b. Appropriateness of Disciplinary Severity ① The worker repeatedly engaged in misconduct, receiving cautions or warnings on a total of seven occasions after 2024. 12. 24.; ② considering this and the fact that the worker did not acknowledge his shortcomings or show any willingness to improve during the disciplinary committee proceedings, the seven-day suspension as a disciplinary measure was an exercise of discretion that … / [More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (violation of standard work methods by internet after-sales technician), violation of company policy/failure to comply with work instructions, disciplinary measures (reprimand, wage reduction, suspension, etc.), 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&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Forced Resignation (Shopping Mall Appreciation Message)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (violation of standard work methods by internet after-sales technician) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Violation of Standard Work Methods by Internet After-Sales Technician).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article