[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (negligent management and supervision).” Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae280 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-31 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld Summary of Key Issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee’s neglect of his duty to manage and supervise staff, resulting in dereliction of duty, constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith under Article 9 of the Rules of Employment and therefore falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 34 of the Personnel Management Regulations. However, the additional ground for discipline raised after the previous disciplinary action (failing to report a staff member’s violation of the Code of Ethics for Officers and Employees despite being aware of it) was not proven by the employer, and thus was not recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on the employee on the grounds of negligent management and supervision and dereliction of duty. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, and the matter was contested there. The initial Labor Relations Commission held that some of the grounds for discipline were established, but that the additional ground for discipline was not proven and that the level of discipline was excessive. The Central Labor Relations Commission, on re‑examination, upheld the initial decision. In this unfair dismissal dispute, the key issues were the criteria for determining the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal and the appropriateness of the level of discipline. The Labor Relations Commission rendered its decision based on the relevant legal principles and precedents. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “In a situation where the employee’s violation of the duty of good faith due to negligent management and supervision is partially recognized, whether the level of disciplinary dismissal is justified when the employer, in the course of re‑discipline, has added a new ground for discipline that has not been proven, and nevertheless included it as a basis for the dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case found that the employee’s neglect of his duty to manage and supervise staff, resulting in dereliction of duty, constituted a violation of the duty of good faith under the Rules of Employment and therefore fell under the grounds for discipline set out in the Personnel Management Regulations. However, with respect to the additional ground for discipline raised at the re‑disciplinary stage after the previous disciplinary action (the allegation that the employee failed to report a violation of the Code of Ethics for Officers and Employees despite being aware of it), the panel held that the employer had failed to prove that allegation and that it therefore could not be recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline. The panel further noted that the level of discipline must be reviewed on the basis of all the grounds that the employer actually took into account at the time of the disciplinary decision, to determine whether, in light of social norms, the decision has clearly lost its reasonableness, and that choosing the most severe sanction—dismissal—on the premise of a serious misconduct that has not been proven exceeds the bounds of the employer’s discretion in exercising disciplinary authority. In light of the above, the panel held that, even though some of the grounds for discipline were recognized, the level of discipline in this case was excessive, and therefore the dismissal was unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that not all alleged misconduct will be recognized as grounds for discipline; only those matters that the employer specifically asserts and proves can constitute grounds for discipline. This is particularly true where abstract forms of misconduct, such as negligent management and supervision or dereliction of duty, are at issue. In such cases, it is necessary to carefully contest what specific conduct is alleged to have violated which specific rules, and how the employer seeks to prove those allegations. Even where some wrongdoing is acknowledged, the Labor Relations Commission will separately review the level of discipline, taking into account the degree and circumstances of the wrongdoing, the employee’s past work attitude, the extent of any damage, and whether the matter truly warrants dismissal or whether a lesser sanction such as a pay cut or suspension would suffice. Employees should make active use of this review of disciplinary severity. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when deciding on disciplinary dismissal, it is important not to list as many grounds for discipline as possible, but rather to clearly specify the instances of misconduct that can actually be proven and to select a level of discipline commensurate with those proven facts. If, in the course of re‑discipline, the employer adds new serious grounds but fails to prove them, there is a significant risk that the entire dismissal, premised on those grounds, will be evaluated as excessively severe. Employers should also ensure that the Rules of Employment and personnel regulations specify, as concretely as possible, the grounds for discipline and criteria for determining the level of discipline, including violations of the duty of good faith and the duty of management and supervision. Systematic preservation of evidentiary materials such as minutes of disciplinary committee meetings and investigation reports will make it easier to defend the legitimacy of disciplinary measures before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. This decision illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, both the proof of grounds for discipline and the review of the legitimacy of the level of discipline are conducted strictly. It is advisable for both employees and employers to consult in advance with experts, such as Labor Law Firm Law&, in order to develop an appropriate response strategy. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee’s neglect of his duty to manage and supervise staff, resulting in dereliction of duty, constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith under Article 9 of the Rules of Employment and therefore falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 34 of the Personnel Management Regulations. However, the additional ground for discipline raised after the previous disciplinary action (failing to report a staff member’s violation of the Code of Ethics for Officers and Employees despite being aware of it) was not proven by the employer, and thus was not recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline. B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline The fact that the additional ground for discipline raised at the re‑disciplinary stage is not recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline must be taken into account when assessing the level of discipline. In light of this, the differences from the grounds for discipline in the previous disciplinary action are… 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee’s neglect of his duty to manage and supervise staff, resulting in dereliction of duty, constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith under Article 9 of the Rules of Employment and therefore falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 34 of the Personnel Management Regulations. However, the additional ground for discipline raised after the previous disciplinary action (failing to report a staff member’s violation of the Code of Ethics for Officers and Employees despite being aware of it) was not proven by the employer, and thus was not recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline. B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline The fact that the additional ground for discipline raised at the re‑disciplinary stage is not recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline must be taken into account when assessing the level of discipline. In light of this, the differences from the grounds for discipline in the previous disciplinary action are… / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Related to Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed - “Unfair Dismissal Case Related to Non‑formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (negligent management and supervision), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy / failure to comply 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Related to Failure to Supplement (Dismissal of Application),” in a new window. ※ You can view the list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (negligent management and supervision) at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management and Supervision).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article