[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal (repeated vehicle accidents).” Decision body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae212 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-04 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: A. Existence of dismissal As both parties agree that the worker in this case was dismissed, and given that the employer notified the worker on 29 April 2026 of dismissal effective 31 May 2026, it is clear that there was a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker who drove a company vehicle was dismissed after causing repeated vehicle accidents over several years. The worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, which was adjudicated by the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission. Based on the fact that the employer notified the worker in writing on 29 April 2026 of dismissal effective 31 May 2026, the Commission examined both the existence and the justifiability of the dismissal. The issue in this case is whether “the disciplinary dismissal of a driver who caused multiple vehicle accidents constitutes a just cause for dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.” Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issues in this case were, first, whether the employer’s choice of the most severe disciplinary measure—dismissal—against a worker performing driving duties, who had repeatedly caused vehicle accidents from shortly after joining the company over a period of several years, amounted to an abuse of disciplinary authority that is clearly unreasonable in light of social norms. Second, it was disputed whether the employer had complied with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by notifying the worker in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing thereof, thereby giving effect to the dismissal, and whether these procedural requirements were satisfied. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel held that the requirements regarding the existence of the dismissal and written notice were satisfied, in light of the following: the employer notified the worker in writing on 29 April 2026 of dismissal effective 31 May 2026; both parties agreed on the fact of dismissal itself; and the dismissal was effected by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent. The panel further noted that the worker acknowledged the record of vehicle accidents submitted by the employer; that, despite having already caused an accident shortly after joining the company in 2018 and having prepared and submitted a written statement of explanation in March 2019, the worker continued to cause accidents from 2019 through 2025; and that, given the nature of a driver’s duties, a breach of the duty of safety can cause not only damage to the company but also serious risks to the life and body of third parties. Taking all of this into account, the Commission found that the dismissal had an objectively reasonable cause and was also appropriate in light of social norms. For these reasons, the Commission held that the dismissal did not exceed the bounds of the employer’s disciplinary discretion and therefore did not constitute an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) In positions where vehicle operation is central—such as driving and delivery roles—not only a single accident but also a history of repeated accidents over a long period can serve as an important basis for disciplinary dismissal. When an accident occurs, it is important to faithfully comply with requirements such as submitting a written statement of explanation, completing training, and making efforts to prevent recurrence, and to leave a record that you have reviewed and complied with the company’s safety rules and driving guidelines in writing. Such records can be helpful in your defense in the event of a future dispute. When receiving a notice of dismissal, carefully check whether the reasons for dismissal and the effective date are specified in concrete terms, and whether it contains any facts you do not acknowledge. Rather than relying solely on procedural defects, you should prepare objective materials concerning the circumstances of the accidents, your work attitude, and your efforts at improvement, and focus your arguments and evidence on the claim that the level of disciplinary action (dismissal) is excessive. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) When considering the disciplinary dismissal of a driver, you should systematically organize and present as grounds for discipline not only the seriousness of each individual accident, but also the number of accidents, the period over which they occurred, and whether similar negligence was repeated. For each accident, you should document the collection of written statements of explanation, training and cautionary measures, and progressive disciplinary measures such as warnings and pay cuts, so that the process leading up to the final dismissal is objectively clear. In addition, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, you must provide the worker with a written document specifying, in sufficient detail for the worker to understand, the reasons for dismissal and the timing thereof, and you must clearly manage the timing of the notice of dismissal and the effective date. If you clearly set out in your rules of employment and personnel regulations the nature of driving duties and the associated safety obligations, and establish and publicize in advance disciplinary standards for repeated accidents, the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the justifiability of a disciplinary dismissal will be higher. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence of dismissal As both parties agree that the worker in this case was dismissed, and given that the employer notified the worker on 29 April 2026 of dismissal effective 31 May 2026, it is clear that there was a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent. B. Justifiability of the dismissal The worker in this case also acknowledged the record of vehicle accidents submitted by the employer; despite having caused a vehicle accident from as early as 2018, shortly after joining the company, and having prepared and submitted a written statement of explanation in March 2019, the worker continued to cause vehicle accidents from 2019 through 2025, and … 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Existence of dismissal As both parties agree that the worker in this case was dismissed, and given that the employer notified the worker on 29 April 2026 of dismissal effective 31 May 2026, it is clear that there was a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent. B. Justifiability of the dismissal The worker in this case also acknowledged the record of vehicle accidents submitted by the employer; despite having caused a vehicle accident from as early as 2018, shortly after joining the company, and having prepared and submitted a written statement of explanation in March 2019, the worker continued to cause vehicle accidents from 2019 through 2025, and … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Defect in Written Notice (Continued Employment After Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Ordinary Dismissal (Conversion of Insolvent Financial Institution into Bridge Insurance Company)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal (repeated vehicle accidents), 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Defect in Written Notice (Continued Employment After Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract),” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal (repeated vehicle accidents) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal (Repeated Vehicle Accidents).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article