[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (repeated misconduct).” Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae582 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-29 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee’s acts of misconduct were found to be factual based on consistent statements from multiple employees and other evidence, and these acts were deemed to violate the company’s personnel management regulations. Accordingly, they all constituted legitimate grounds for discipline. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee received a disciplinary measure (suspension from work) for several acts of misconduct in violation of the company’s personnel management regulations. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the measure was an unfair disciplinary action equivalent to unfair dismissal. After comprehensively reviewing the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employee’s application. This decision not only clarifies the criteria for determining the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal, which frequently arises in unfair dismissal disputes, but also the criteria for assessing the legitimacy of disciplinary measures such as suspension from work and suspension from duties. It is closely aligned with the types of cases that Labor Law Firm Law& commonly advises on and represents in practice. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case were whether, in a situation where an employee who had repeatedly committed multiple acts of misconduct was given a disciplinary suspension from work: (i) the grounds for discipline actually existed, (ii) the level of discipline was manifestly excessive by social standards, and (iii) the disciplinary committee procedures were conducted lawfully. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case noted that the employer convened and operated the disciplinary committee based on the personnel management regulations; that the employee’s misconduct was established by objective evidence, including consistent statements from multiple employees; that such misconduct fell under the grounds for discipline set out in the company’s personnel management regulations; that the employee had repeated the same or similar misconduct; and that, during the disciplinary committee proceedings, the employee submitted a written explanation and appeared before the committee to explain each ground for discipline. In light of the above, the panel found that no dismissal had in fact occurred in this case, that the disciplinary measure of suspension from work could not be regarded as manifestly excessive by social standards in light of the grounds for discipline, and that the disciplinary procedures had been lawfully conducted in accordance with the personnel management regulations. Ultimately, the Labor Relations Commission held that the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures were all established, and therefore dismissed the employee’s application for a remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline). Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it is important not only to consider whether “the grounds for discipline actually existed,” but also to first check how the grounds for discipline and disciplinary procedures are set out in the company’s personnel management regulations and rules of employment. Where multiple acts of misconduct have been repeated, the employee should organize, in a multi-faceted manner, statements and evidence regarding each act of misconduct, efforts to remedy any harm, and past work attitude, and then specifically argue and prove that the level of discipline is excessive. Furthermore, if an opportunity to appear before the disciplinary committee is provided, the employee should carefully organize the facts and all mitigating circumstances in the written explanation and during testimony. Doing so will make it easier to exercise the right of defense at later stages before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, before proceeding with discipline, it is advisable to specify the acts of misconduct that constitute grounds for discipline and to sufficiently secure in advance the evidence to prove them (statements from relevant employees, documents, system logs, etc.). With respect to the level of discipline, the employer should comprehensively consider whether there are multiple grounds for misconduct, the repetitive nature of the misconduct, the extent of damage, whether the damage has been remedied, the employee’s duties and position, and the employee’s past work attitude, and then determine a level of discipline that would not readily be deemed manifestly excessive by social standards. In terms of disciplinary procedures, the employer should strictly comply with the procedures for constituting the disciplinary committee, prior notice, and providing an opportunity to explain, as set out in the rules of employment, personnel management regulations, and collective agreements. The employer should also document the minutes of the meeting, the content of resolutions, and whether written explanations were received, as such records will assist in defending the lawfulness of the discipline before the Labor Relations Commission. Finally, employers should bear in mind in day-to-day HR and labor management that not only serious personnel measures such as unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal, but also disciplinary measures such as suspension from work and suspension from duties fall within “dismissal, suspension from work, suspension from duties, transfer, reduction in wages, and other punitive measures” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, and are therefore subject to strict scrutiny as to their legitimacy. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee’s acts of misconduct were found to be factual based on consistent statements from multiple employees and other evidence, and these acts were deemed to violate the company’s personnel management regulations. Accordingly, they all constituted legitimate grounds for discipline. B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline The employee appears to have repeatedly engaged in the same or similar forms of misconduct, and therefore the suspension from work was deemed an appropriate measure by social standards. C. Lawfulness of Disciplinary Procedures The employer constituted and convened the disciplinary committee in accordance with the personnel management regulations, and it was confirmed that the employee submitted a written explanation and appeared before the disciplinary committee to explain each ground for discipline, and therefore… 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee’s acts of misconduct were found to be factual based on consistent statements from multiple employees and other evidence, and these acts were deemed to violate the company’s personnel management regulations. Accordingly, they all constituted legitimate grounds for discipline. B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline The employee appears to have repeatedly engaged in the same or similar forms of misconduct, and therefore the suspension from work was deemed an appropriate measure by social standards. C. Lawfulness of Disciplinary Procedures The employer constituted and convened the disciplinary committee in accordance with the personnel management regulations, and it was confirmed that the employee submitted a written explanation and appeared before the disciplinary committee to explain each ground for discipline, and therefore… / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld - “‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed - “‘Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Verbal Abuse and Insults to Family Members)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (repeated misconduct), violation of company policy · failure to follow 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, “‘Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Verbal Abuse and Insults to Family Members)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (repeated misconduct) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Misconduct).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article