[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “employer domination or interference (transportation division head encouraging union membership).” Adjudicating Body: Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026UnfairDismissal204 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-07-28 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of Key Issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee, as transportation division head, effectively held the status of an employer and encouraged employees to join a specific labor union. This conduct is highly likely to constitute an unfair labor practice of employer domination or interference under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. In particular, given that the matter was reported in the media and that the employer was also subject to a request for a summary order by the investigative authorities, the conduct constitutes grounds for discipline. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee serving as transportation division head was dismissed for cause (disciplinary dismissal) on the grounds, among others, that he had encouraged employees to join a specific labor union. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. After comprehensively examining whether the disciplinary dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, the existence of grounds for discipline, the statute of limitations for disciplinary action, and the appropriateness of the level of discipline, the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employee’s application for relief. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are whether the transportation division head, who held the status of an employer, committed an act of employer domination or interference under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act by encouraging employees to join a specific union, whether the request for a disciplinary resolution made after notification of the completion of the criminal investigation was within the disciplinary limitation period, and further, whether the level of discipline in the form of dismissal based on these grounds was so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to be deemed grossly unfair. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The adjudicating panel found that the transportation division head, while effectively exercising influence over personnel and labor affairs in the capacity of an employer, encouraged employees to join a specific union; that this conduct became an issue of illegality to the extent that it was reported in the media and led the investigative authorities to seek a summary order; and that there was a strong likelihood that it constituted employer domination or interference under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. In light of these factors, the panel held that the conduct fell within the grounds for discipline under the company’s rules of employment and personnel regulations. The panel also rejected the argument that the statute of limitations for disciplinary action had expired, noting that the personnel regulations set the limitation period as “a request for a disciplinary resolution within one month from the date of notification of the completion of the investigation,” and that, in this case, the request for discipline was in fact made within that period. In addition, referring to Supreme Court precedents holding that the determination of the level of discipline is, in principle, within the employer’s discretion and that it is only when the measure is so clearly lacking in reasonableness in light of social norms that it may be deemed an abuse of discretion and thus invalid, the panel considered that the misconduct in this case had a significant impact on the company’s external image and organizational trust. Taking into account the importance and heavy responsibility associated with the position of transportation division head, the panel concluded that the dismissal in this case was based on serious grounds sufficient, in light of social norms, to render continuation of the employment relationship impossible, and thus could not readily be regarded as unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Where an employee holds a de facto employer status, such as a manager or department head, conduct that induces or pressures employees to join or withdraw from a particular labor union may be evaluated as an unfair labor practice (employer domination or interference) and may lead to disciplinary dismissal. Where criminal proceedings are underway and the company’s rules set the starting point of the disciplinary limitation period as the “date of notification of completion of the investigation,” it is difficult to expect the disciplinary power to lapse merely with the passage of time. When applying for a remedy for unfair dismissal, it is necessary not only to dispute the very existence of the grounds for discipline, but also to adopt a strategy of specifically proving, with concrete circumstances and materials, that the level of discipline is markedly excessive in light of social norms. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the company’s standpoint, it should be premised that mid- to high-level managers such as transportation division heads may fall within the definition of “employer” under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. On that basis, it is necessary to prepare clear internal training and guidelines regarding statements and conduct related to labor unions. With respect to the disciplinary limitation period, the rules of employment and personnel regulations should clearly define the relationship with criminal procedures, the starting point, and the duration of the period, and in actual cases, the company must proceed with requests for disciplinary resolutions and other procedures within the limitation period in accordance with those provisions. Furthermore, when opting for disciplinary dismissal, it is important to organize all relevant circumstances—such as the nature and impact of the misconduct, whether it was reported in the media, damage to corporate image, the characteristics of the position and duties, and the employee’s past work attitude—and to secure sufficient documentation and evidence so that the reasonableness of the level of discipline can be explained before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. This decision of the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission is a case that well illustrates the Commission’s approach to recognizing grounds for discipline and assessing the level of discipline in matters where unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices intersect. It also suggests that both employees and employers should, in advance, review potential risks with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Adjudicated A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee, as transportation division head, effectively held the status of an employer and encouraged employees to join a specific labor union. This conduct is highly likely to constitute an unfair labor practice of employer domination or interference under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and, in particular, in light of the fact that it was reported in the media and that the employer was also subject to a request for a summary order by the investigative authorities, it constitutes grounds for discipline. In addition, pursuant to Article 64(2) of the personnel regulations, the statute of limitations for disciplinary action did not expire, as the request for a disciplinary resolution was made within one month from the date of notification of completion of the investigation. B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline The determination of the level of discipline falls within the employer’s discretion, and where the employee’s misconduct has a significant impact on organizational trust, … 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee, as transportation division head, effectively held the status of an employer and encouraged employees to join a specific labor union. This conduct is highly likely to constitute an unfair labor practice of employer domination or interference under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and, in particular, in light of the fact that it was reported in the media and that the employer was also subject to a request for a summary order by the investigative authorities, it constitutes grounds for discipline. In addition, pursuant to Article 64(2) of the personnel regulations, the statute of limitations for disciplinary action did not expire, as the request for a disciplinary resolution was made within one month from the date of notification of completion of the investigation. B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline The determination of the level of discipline falls within the employer’s discretion, and where the employee’s misconduct has a significant impact on organizational trust, … [See More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case outcome: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, employer domination or interference (transportation division head encouraging union membership), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · noncompliance with work instructions, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Limitation on Application of the Law (Fewer Than Five Employees)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of precedents related to employer domination or interference (transportation division head encouraging union membership) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Related to Employer Domination or Interference (Transportation Division Head Encouraging Union Membership).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article