[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (four traffic accidents involving a special transportation vehicle).” Adjudicating body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae158 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-09-17 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline Under the Rules of Employment, the disciplinary standard for traffic accidents provides that where a driver, while operating a special transportation vehicle, causes three or more traffic accidents within one year in which his or her own fault ratio is 50% or more, such conduct constitutes grounds for discipline. This provision must be interpreted not merely according to its literal wording, but in a manner consistent with its purpose of preventing repeated accidents and ensuring the safety of transportation-disadvantaged persons. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, a driver of a special transportation vehicle was dismissed for cause (disciplinary dismissal) on the ground that he had caused repeated traffic accidents, and accordingly filed an application with the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission assessed the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal by comprehensively considering the disciplinary standards for traffic accidents set out in the Rules of Employment, the actual circumstances of the accidents, the number of accidents, and the degree of fault. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, where a driver of a special transportation vehicle causes multiple traffic accidents within one year in which his or her own negligence is substantial, such conduct constitutes grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment, and whether the level of disciplinary dismissal imposed on that basis is socially acceptable and thus justified. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The adjudicating panel in this case found that sufficient grounds for discipline existed under the Rules of Employment, in light of the following: the Rules of Employment provide that “where a driver, while operating a special transportation vehicle, causes three or more traffic accidents within one year in which his or her own fault ratio is 50% or more, such conduct constitutes grounds for discipline”; this provision must be interpreted not as a mere textual formula, but in a manner consistent with its purpose of preventing repeated accidents and protecting the life and bodily integrity of transportation-disadvantaged persons; and the applicant caused four traffic accidents within the one-year period calculated retroactively from the date of the last accident, with 100% fault attributed to the applicant in each accident. Furthermore, the panel premised its analysis on the general legal principle that, in disciplinary cases involving traffic accidents, the severity of discipline must be assessed by comprehensively considering the number of accidents, the degree of fault, the nature of the driving duties (risk of serious accidents, need to protect transportation-disadvantaged persons), and any prior disciplinary record, and by examining whether the outcome is balanced in light of social norms. Referring to precedents in which the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal was upheld where repeated traffic violations and accidents heightened the risk of a serious accident, and conversely to cases where dismissal was deemed excessive even for three accidents within a short period where the circumstances were minor, the panel likely placed significant weight, in this case, on the special nature of the special transportation service for transportation-disadvantaged persons and on the fact that the applicant was 100% at fault in all four accidents. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees engaged in driving duties—such as special transportation vehicles, city and intercity buses, and taxis—should be mindful that traffic accidents are readily viewed not merely as simple negligence but as “disruption of corporate order,” and that repeated accidents may lead to disciplinary dismissal. Where the Rules of Employment specify concrete standards such as the number of accidents and fault ratios, it is advisable to carefully check any history of warnings, training, pay cuts, or other disciplinary measures even before those standards are met, and to document the circumstances of each accident and efforts at improvement. Doing so will help prepare to substantiate the degree of one’s responsibility before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts in the future. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to refine the Rules of Employment and detailed internal regulations so that disciplinary standards for traffic accidents do not stop at a simple numerical count, but clearly reflect normative purposes such as the protection of transportation-disadvantaged persons, the risk of serious accidents, and the degree of fault. In particular, unlike redundancy dismissals, disciplinary dismissals are sanctions for the individual employee’s misconduct. Therefore, to reduce disputes before the Labor Relations Commission over abuse of disciplinary discretion, employers should objectively record the circumstances of the accident, confirmation of the fault ratio, records of prior safety training and cautionary measures, and consistency of discipline as compared with other drivers. Finally, in unfair dismissal disputes, the existence of grounds for discipline and the appropriateness of the level of discipline are distinct stages of review and must always be clearly distinguished. Both employees and employers should, from the outset of a case, consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and systematically prepare materials concerning interpretation of the Rules of Employment and the circumstances of the accidents. This can work to their advantage in proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission. 2. Matters Adjudicated A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence of grounds for discipline Under the Rules of Employment, the disciplinary standard for traffic accidents provides that where a driver, while operating a special transportation vehicle, causes three or more traffic accidents within one year in which his or her own fault ratio is 50% or more, such conduct constitutes grounds for discipline. This provision must be interpreted not merely according to its literal wording, but in a manner consistent with its purpose of preventing repeated accidents and ensuring the safety of transportation-disadvantaged persons. As the applicant caused a total of four traffic accidents within the one-year period calculated retroactively from the date of the last accident, and was found to be 100% at fault in each accident, grounds for discipline exist. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline The purpose of the discipline in this case is, through the prevention of recurrence of traffic accidents, to protect the life and safety of customers… 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Existence of grounds for discipline Under the Rules of Employment, the disciplinary standard for traffic accidents provides that where a driver, while operating a special transportation vehicle, causes three or more traffic accidents within one year in which his or her own fault ratio is 50% or more, such conduct constitutes grounds for discipline. This provision must be interpreted not merely according to its literal wording, but in a manner consistent with its purpose of preventing repeated accidents and ensuring the safety of transportation-disadvantaged persons. As the applicant caused a total of four traffic accidents within the one-year period calculated retroactively from the date of the last accident, and was found to be 100% at fault in each accident, grounds for discipline exist. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline The purpose of the discipline in this case is, through the prevention of recurrence of traffic accidents, to protect the life and safety of customers… / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Dismissal Rejected (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Decision date: – Case result: Rejected - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (four traffic accidents involving a special transportation vehicle), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to comply 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Language Institute’s Excessive Tuition Charges)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to disciplinary severity (four traffic accidents involving a special transportation vehicle) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Relating to Disciplinary Severity (Four Traffic Accidents Involving a Special Transportation Vehicle).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article