This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (discipline for remarks after 4 years and 4 months).” [Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee fully prevailed (all claims upheld) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (discipline for remarks after 4 years and 4 months).” Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae500 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-30 · Case Result: All Claims Upheld Summary of Key Issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline In the absence of any objective physical evidence regarding the employee’s remarks, it is difficult to find that such remarks were in fact made based solely on a witness statement given 4 years and 4 months after the alleged remarks. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, the employer imposed a disciplinary sanction of a three‑month pay reduction on the employee based on remarks allegedly made in the past. The employee contested the sanction by filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure, and rendered a decision fully upholding the employee’s claims. This type of decision is one that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently advises on in similar matters. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether it is a justified disciplinary action to impose a heavy sanction of a three‑month pay reduction solely on the basis of a witness statement given 4 years and 4 months after the fact, in a situation where there is no objective physical evidence whatsoever regarding the employee’s problematic remarks, and furthermore, whether the level of discipline maintains its reasonableness under generally accepted social norms. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that there was no objective physical evidence at all regarding the content of the employee’s remarks, and that it was difficult to acknowledge the existence and specific content of the alleged remarks based solely on a witness statement given 4 years and 4 months after the time of the alleged remarks. Nevertheless, the employer imposed a relatively heavy sanction of a three‑month pay reduction based on such unclear facts. In light of this, the panel found that the sanction was an excessively severe measure that had clearly lost its reasonableness under generally accepted social norms. Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair, as the grounds for discipline were insufficiently proven and the level of discipline was excessive. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, when an employer imposes discipline based on an old incident, it is necessary to carefully check whether objective materials from that time (documents, recordings, emails, etc.) exist and whether the employer clearly presents them. If a heavy disciplinary measure such as an excessive pay reduction, suspension, or redundancy dismissal is imposed while the grounds for discipline remain vague, the employee should consider filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission and actively contest both the insufficiency of proof of the disciplinary grounds and the excessiveness of the level of discipline. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, when imposing discipline based on an employee’s remarks or conduct, the longer the time lapse, the less the employer should rely solely on witness statements, and the more it should endeavor to secure and preserve objective materials from the time of the incident. In addition, where the existence and content of the grounds for discipline are unclear, the employer should refrain from imposing heavy sanctions such as pay reduction or suspension, and should adjust the level of discipline to a degree acceptable under generally accepted social norms, taking into comprehensive account the clarity of the facts, the seriousness of the conduct, and any prior disciplinary record. This type of decision is an important example showing that, even where the disciplinary procedure itself has been carried out in accordance with the rules of employment, the Labor Relations Commission may still find unfair dismissal or unfair discipline if the grounds for discipline are insufficiently proven or the level of discipline is excessive. Employers are therefore advised to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to refine their disciplinary standards and evidence‑preservation systems. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence of grounds for discipline In the absence of any objective physical evidence regarding the employee’s remarks, it is difficult to find that such remarks were in fact made based solely on a witness statement given 4 years and 4 months after the alleged remarks. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline Even though the existence and content of the conduct relied upon as disciplinary evidence were unclear, the employer imposed a three‑month pay reduction based on that conduct. This constitutes an excessively severe sanction that has lost its reasonableness under generally accepted social norms. C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure As the procedures stipulated in the rules of employment—such as guaranteeing the right to be heard and providing a review (appeal) procedure—were observed, there was no procedural defect. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Existence of grounds for discipline In the absence of any objective physical evidence regarding the employee’s remarks, it is difficult to find that such remarks were in fact made based solely on a witness statement given 4 years and 4 months after the alleged remarks. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline Even though the existence and content of the conduct relied upon as disciplinary evidence were unclear, the employer imposed a three‑month pay reduction based on that conduct. This constitutes an excessively severe sanction that has lost its reasonableness under generally accepted social norms. C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure As the procedures stipulated in the rules of employment—such as guaranteeing the right to be heard and providing a review (appeal) procedure—were observed, there was no procedural defect. / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial Decision Maintained - ‘Interest in Relief (Resignation of Operating Room Head Nurse)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (discipline for remarks after 4 years and 4 months), disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary action), others, 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, “‘Interest in Relief (Resignation of Operating Room Head Nurse)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (discipline for remarks after 4 years and 4 months) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Discipline for Remarks After 4 Years and 4 Months)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article