[Case Information] This case concerns a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal (continuous vehicle accidents).” Decision date: 2026-08-04 · Decision body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae212 Summary of key issue: A. Existence of dismissal Both parties agree that the worker in this case was dismissed, and in light of the fact that the employer notified the worker on April 29, 2026 of dismissal effective May 31, 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, an elderly worker of about 70 years of age, who operated a clamp truck, caused repeated vehicle accidents. The employer then notified him of dismissal, and the worker filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of the dismissal but conducted the hearing focusing on whether it was justified. It ultimately held that the employer’s dismissal was justified and dismissed the worker’s application for remedy. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “In a situation where an elderly clamp-truck operator has caused multiple vehicle accidents over a long period, and a company without internal disciplinary procedures has notified the worker in writing of the grounds and effective date of dismissal, whether such dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal or a socially acceptable and justified dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employer, on April 29, 2026, notified the worker of his dismissal effective May 31, 2026, clearly stating the grounds and timing of the dismissal; that the worker had a record of continuously causing vehicle accidents from 2018, immediately after joining the company, through 2025, and had even submitted a written statement of explanation (shimalseo) in 2019; and that, compared with a colleague who operated the same clamp truck, the amount of insurance payouts attributable to this worker’s accidents was overwhelmingly higher. Taking into account that: - a clamp truck, unlike an ordinary passenger car, requires a high level of driving skill and crisis-response ability, - the worker, being about 70 years old, can be considered to pose a relatively higher safety risk, and - even though the company had no internal disciplinary procedure rules and therefore did not go through a separate disciplinary committee process, that fact alone does not render the dismissal invalid, the panel concluded as follows. The dismissal in this case was based on responsible grounds attributable to the worker, to such an extent that, in light of social norms, the employment relationship could no longer reasonably be maintained. Furthermore, the employer fulfilled its obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of the grounds and timing of dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal did not constitute an unfair dismissal but was a justified dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s standpoint, it should be kept in mind that when repeated accidents and negligence accumulate, the overall safety risk and cost burden may be evaluated as grounds for disciplinary dismissal, regardless of the severity of any single accident. In particular, written statements of explanation, insurance claim records, and similar documents all become important materials for determining the level of discipline in the future. After an accident, it is therefore necessary to leave objective evidence of improvement efforts, such as measures to prevent recurrence, completion of training, and health checks. In addition, where the notice of dismissal specifically sets out the grounds and effective date of dismissal, it may be more realistic to focus the defense strategy not on procedural defects, but on the circumstances of the accidents, the worker’s potential for improvement, and the possibility of alternative personnel measures (transfer, training, etc.). Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, even if disciplinary rules or procedures are incomplete, it is essential under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to clearly notify the worker in writing of the grounds and effective date of dismissal. As this case shows, procedural legitimacy can be recognized where such written notice is properly given. However, to prevent future disputes, it is advisable to set out in the rules of employment specific provisions on types of discipline, procedures, and disciplinary standards related to safety accidents, and to keep records of step-by-step measures taken in the event of repeated accidents, such as training, reassignment, and job suitability evaluations. Especially where an elderly worker operates equipment that requires a high degree of skill and concentration, employers should establish a safety management system that includes regular health check-ups, driving aptitude assessments, and retraining. This will help demonstrate that the company took all reasonable measures available prior to dismissal. To prevail in this type of case, it is important to have a precise understanding of the legal principles governing the “possibility of maintaining the employment relationship in light of social norms,” which is the standard for determining unfair dismissal, and to systematically organize and submit to the Labor Relations Commission the relevant facts, such as the history of repeated accidents, cost burden, level of safety risk, and feasibility of alternative measures. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which the existence of dismissal was clear, but the dismissal was found to be justified, and the application was dismissed. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Existence of Dismissal Both parties do not dispute that the worker in this case was dismissed, and in light of the fact that the employer notified the worker on April 29, 2026 of dismissal effective May 31, 2026, it is clear that there was a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent. B. Justification of the Dismissal The worker in this case acknowledges the vehicle accident records submitted by the employer. Despite having caused a vehicle accident as early as 2018, immediately after joining the company, and having prepared and submitted a written statement of explanation in March 2019, he continued to cause vehicle accidents from 2019 through 2025. Compared with other co-workers who operated the clamp truck, the amount of vehicle insurance payouts attributable to this worker was overwhelmingly higher. The worker is elderly, at about 70 years of age. The clamp truck he operated, unlike an ordinary passenger car, requires a high level of driving skill and response capability. The company in this case has no rules regarding disciplinary procedures, and the failure to implement such procedures cannot by itself render the dismissal invalid. The employer notified the worker of the dismissal, specifying the grounds and timing of dismissal. Taking all of these factors together, the dismissal in this case is based on grounds attributable to the worker to such an extent that, in light of social norms, the employment relationship can no longer reasonably be maintained. It is therefore considered that the situation had reached a point where, in light of social norms, the employment relationship with this worker could not be continued, and the dismissal in this case is judged to be a justified dismissal. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Remedy Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Entity)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal (continuous vehicle accidents), performance evaluation · poor performance, 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 on ‘Defect in Written Notice (Continuous Employment After Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal (continuous vehicle accidents) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal (Continuous Vehicle Accidents).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article