[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the initial ruling was upheld on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (negligent management and supervision).” Decision date: 2026-07-31 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae280 Key issue summary: 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 breach of the duty of good faith under Article 9 of the Rules of Employment and therefore falls within 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 (failure to report, despite knowing of a staff member’s violation of the Code of Ethics for Officers and Employees) was not proven by the employer, and thus was not accepted as a legitimate ground for discipline. 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case is a disciplinary re‑review case handled by the Central Labor Relations Commission, in which the Commission examined both whether the level of discipline was excessively harsh and whether the employer’s conduct constituted an unfair labor practice. This is a type of case frequently encountered in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&, where some of the grounds for discipline are acknowledged, but the severity of the disciplinary measure is at issue to a degree comparable to a redundancy dismissal. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee, who held a position with responsibility for managing and supervising staff, had previously been disciplined for partially neglecting his management and supervision duties. Thereafter, the employer conducted a re‑disciplinary process, adding to the previous grounds for discipline the allegation that the employee “failed to report a known violation of the Code of Ethics for Officers and Employees,” and imposed a one‑month suspension as a result. The employee filed a relief application with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that this re‑disciplinary measure was excessively harsh relative to the grounds for discipline, and that it simultaneously constituted an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment and domination/interference targeting his union activities. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case were: “In a situation where the employee’s misconduct in the form of negligent management and supervision of staff is partially acknowledged, does maintaining a one‑month suspension in the re‑disciplinary process, despite the employer’s failure to prove the additional ground for discipline, constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline? Furthermore, does such discipline amount to an unfair labor practice (disadvantageous treatment and domination/interference)?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that the portion of the employer’s allegations concerning negligent management and supervision of staff did constitute a breach of the duty of good faith under the Rules of Employment and therefore a ground for discipline. However, the newly added allegation at the re‑disciplinary stage—“failure to report a known violation of the Code of Ethics for Officers and Employees”—was not proven by the employer. Nevertheless, the employer appeared to have taken this additional ground into account in determining the level of discipline and maintained a one‑month suspension as a heavy sanction. Considering the nature and degree of the misconduct, the company’s internal standards for determining disciplinary measures, and consistency with measures imposed on other employees in similar cases, the Commission held that a one‑month suspension was excessively harsh by social standards and exceeded and abused the limits of the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline. Separately, the Commission found no defect in the disciplinary procedures themselves, and noted that some of the employee’s misconduct still remained established. It further held that the mere fact that the same disciplinary measure was imposed could not, by itself, be directly equated with an unfair labor practice, and that it was difficult to conclude that the employer imposed the discipline with the intent to suppress or dominate/interfere with union activities. On this basis, the Commission rejected the allegation that the discipline constituted an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment and domination/interference. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even if some grounds for discipline are acknowledged, if all of the grounds asserted by the employer are not proven, or if the level of discipline is excessively harsh by social standards in light of those grounds, the employee should be aware that he or she may seek corrective relief from the Labor Relations Commission. In particular, where new grounds are added in the course of re‑discipline, it is important to carefully examine whether those grounds actually exist and whether the employer is substantiating them with objective evidence. Furthermore, unfair labor practices require, independently of the illegality of the discipline itself, that an “intent to sanction or chill union activities” be recognized. It is therefore crucial to systematically organize the causal relationship between union activities and the discipline, as well as the background of the employer’s statements and actions. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even where grounds for discipline exist, if the level of discipline is, in light of the nature and degree of the misconduct, the company’s disciplinary standards, and consistency with similar cases, excessively harsh by social standards, the measure may be found to be an unfair disciplinary action by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. When conducting re‑discipline based on multiple grounds, the employer should secure objective evidence for each ground, and should, in advance, review how the overall level of discipline would be affected if any newly added ground in the re‑disciplinary process is not accepted. In addition, the more a disciplinary measure is taken in the context of labor‑management relations, the more important it is to strictly observe procedural legality so as to avoid any suspicion of a connection between the grounds for discipline and union activities, and to ensure that the selection of grounds for discipline and the criteria for determining the level of discipline are applied consistently. To this end, internal regulations and actual operational practices should be reviewed and refined. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that, although some grounds for discipline—such as dereliction of duty arising from negligent management and supervision of staff—were acknowledged, the disciplinary measure of suspension was unfair because the level of discipline was excessive in light of the degree of misconduct, including the fact that the additional ground raised in the re‑disciplinary process was not accepted as a legitimate ground for discipline. The Commission also found that the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice was not established, and therefore the measure did not constitute an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment or domination/interference. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee’s conduct in neglecting his duty to manage and supervise staff, resulting in dereliction of duty, constitutes a breach of the duty of good faith under Article 9 of the Rules of Employment and therefore falls within 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 (failure to report, despite knowing of a staff member’s violation of the Code of Ethics for Officers and Employees) was not proven by the employer, and thus is not accepted as a legitimate ground for discipline. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline The fact that the additional ground for discipline raised in the re‑disciplinary process is not accepted as a legitimate ground for discipline must be taken into account in determining the level of discipline. In light of this, there is no change from the previous grounds for discipline. Considering the nature and degree of the misconduct, the company’s guidelines on standards for disciplinary measures, and consistency with other employees, the one‑month suspension is deemed to have exceeded and abused the limits of the employer’s discretionary authority in determining the level of discipline. c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures There is no defect in terms of procedural legality. d. Whether the Disciplinary Measure Constitutes an Unfair Labor Practice in the Form of Disadvantageous Treatment or Domination/Interference The grounds for disciplining the employee still exist, and the mere fact that the employer imposed the same measure cannot, by itself, be directly equated with an unfair labor practice. It is also difficult to view the discipline as having been imposed with an intent to commit an unfair labor practice. [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management and Supervision)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Disciplinary Measure (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (negligent management and supervision), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · noncompliance 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, “‘Failure to Supplement (Dismissal of Application)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measures (negligent management and supervision) can be found under “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Measures (Negligent Management and Supervision).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article