This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (refusal to submit a written explanation · poor attendance).” Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae947 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-28 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of Key Issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee’s poor attendance, refusal without just cause to submit a written explanation, and inappropriate remarks and behavior toward a superior were all recognized as grounds for discipline. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline In light of the facts that the employer had explained that no separate disciplinary action would be taken if the employee submitted a written explanation, yet the employee failed to comply with that instruction and did not improve his work attitude, the suspension imposed to maintain order in a small workplace was not considered excessive. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns a small business where the employer imposed a suspension as disciplinary action on an employee due to repeated poor attendance, refusal without just cause to submit a written explanation, and inappropriate remarks and behavior toward a superior. The issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether this constituted unfair dismissal. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that the grounds for the suspension were weak and that both the procedure and the severity of the sanction were improper. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission heard the case and dismissed the application. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether a suspension imposed on the grounds of poor attendance, refusal to submit a written explanation, and inappropriate remarks and behavior toward a superior satisfies all of the following—existence of grounds for discipline, appropriateness of the level of discipline, and legality of the disciplinary procedure—such that it does not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employee’s poor attendance, refusal without just cause to submit a written explanation, and inappropriate remarks and behavior toward a superior objectively constituted grounds for discipline. It further noted that, even though the employer had gone so far as to inform the employee that no separate disciplinary action would be taken if he submitted a written explanation, the employee did not comply and his work attitude did not improve thereafter. In addition, given that the suspension was chosen in a small workplace as a means of maintaining workplace order, it was difficult to regard the measure as markedly excessive by social standards. Accordingly, the Commission determined that the dismissal in this case could not readily be deemed unfair in terms of grounds for discipline, disciplinary severity, or disciplinary procedure. It also held that, in a workplace with fewer than 10 employees, where there is no statutory obligation under the Labor Standards Act to prepare work rules and thus no internal provisions on disciplinary procedures, there is no procedural defect so long as the employee has been given an opportunity to explain. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that when repeated tardiness or absence and other forms of poor attendance are combined with refusal without just cause to comply with work instructions (including a request to submit a written explanation) and inappropriate remarks and behavior toward a superior, even a severe sanction such as suspension may be found to be justified. In particular, where the employer has provided an opportunity for improvement—such as stating that “no separate disciplinary action will be taken if you submit a written explanation”—but the employee fails to comply, this may in effect strengthen the justification for subsequent disciplinary action. Employees should therefore respond with care in such situations. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to record and accumulate the grounds for discipline as concretely as possible, and to document the prior guidance and warning process, including requests for written explanations and demands for improvement. Even in workplaces with fewer than 10 employees, where there are no work rules or internal provisions on disciplinary procedures, the employer should at a minimum follow procedures that include fact-finding and providing the employee with an opportunity to explain. Doing so significantly increases the likelihood that the legality and justification of the disciplinary action will be upheld by the Labor Relations Commission. In this type of case, it is advisable to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to systematically organize the three pillars of (i) existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) legality of the procedure. This is a key practical point for preventing disputes over unfair dismissal. 2. Matters Adjudicated A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee’s poor attendance, refusal without just cause to submit a written explanation, and inappropriate remarks and behavior toward a superior were recognized as grounds for discipline. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline In light of the fact that, despite the employer’s explanation that no separate disciplinary action would be taken if the employee submitted a written explanation, the employee did not comply with that instruction and his work attitude did not improve, the suspension imposed to maintain order in a small workplace was not considered excessive. C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure Although this was a workplace with fewer than 10 employees, where there is no obligation under the Labor Standards Act to prepare work rules and thus no provisions on disciplinary procedures, the employee was given an opportunity to explain… 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee’s poor attendance, refusal without just cause to submit a written explanation, and inappropriate remarks and behavior toward a superior were recognized as grounds for discipline. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline In light of the fact that, despite the employer’s explanation that no separate disciplinary action would be taken if the employee submitted a written explanation, the employee did not comply with that instruction and his work attitude did not improve, the suspension imposed to maintain order in a small workplace was not considered excessive. C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure Although this was a workplace with fewer than 10 employees, where there is no obligation under the Labor Standards Act to prepare work rules and thus no provisions on disciplinary procedures, the employee was given an opportunity to explain… / [See More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (refusal to submit written explanation · poor attendance), violation of company policy · non-compliance 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedent” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on Failure to Pass Probation Evaluation (Extension of Probationary Period by 3 Months),” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (refusal to submit written explanation · poor attendance) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents on Disciplinary Severity (Refusal to Submit Written Explanation · Poor Attendance).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article