[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “justifiability of disciplinary dismissal (discourtesy to customers · conflict with colleagues).” Decision-making body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해711 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-11 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: A. Whether the grounds for dismissal were justifiable The employee’s conduct of “being discourteous to customers” and “causing conflict among fellow employees” falls under the grounds set forth in Article 9(4)6 of the employment contract. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer dismissed an employee on the grounds that the employee responded discourteously to customers and repeatedly caused conflict with co‑workers. The issue of whether this constituted unfair dismissal was brought before the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused its review on whether the employee’s conduct fell within the disciplinary and dismissal grounds stipulated in the employment contract, and whether the dismissal notice procedure satisfied the written notice requirement under the Labor Standards Act. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case were: “Whether the employee’s discourteous response to customers and repeated conflicts with fellow employees constituted misconduct serious enough to warrant disciplinary dismissal, in light of the employer’s line of business and the provisions of the employment contract; and, in circumstances where there was some dispute over the process of delivering and signing the dismissal notice, whether the Labor Relations Commission could find a procedural defect in the dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that, given the nature of the employer’s business, customer service and interpersonal skills are core job competencies; that the employee’s discourtesy toward customers and conflicts with co‑workers were not isolated incidents but repeated acts of misconduct; and that these acts directly corresponded to the grounds for dismissal enumerated in Article 9(4)6 of the employment contract. In light of these factors, the panel determined that the employee’s conduct had significantly damaged the relationship of trust with the employer, making it difficult to maintain the employment relationship. With respect to whether the employee took a photograph of the dismissal notice, there was disagreement between the parties. However, setting that aside, the panel confirmed that the employer had delivered the dismissal notice in writing and that the employee had signed that document. As a result, the grounds and effective date of dismissal were clearly specified, and there was no substantial impediment to the employee’s ability to pursue subsequent remedies, such as filing an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, the legislative purpose of the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act was deemed to have been fulfilled, and there was no serious procedural defect in the dismissal. Ultimately, the panel held that the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary authority, and that both the grounds and the procedure for dismissal were justifiable. Therefore, the dismissal did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, in industries where customer service and cooperation/relationship‑building with colleagues are central to the essence of the job, repeated discourtesy and conflict‑inducing behavior can go beyond a mere personality issue and rise to the level of disciplinary grounds for dismissal. If you receive repeated warnings or cautions about your words or conduct, you should keep a record of the specific aspects being pointed out as problematic, and accumulate objective evidence of your efforts to improve, such as participation in training and records of counseling or interviews. If you receive a dismissal notice, it is important to preserve evidence of receipt and signature, as well as the contents (grounds for dismissal and effective date), by taking photographs or obtaining copies. These will serve as basic defensive materials in a future application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. However, if your signature appears on the written document, that alone may be taken as evidence that the dismissal notice was delivered and acknowledged. Therefore, before signing, you must carefully confirm the grounds and timing of the dismissal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly stipulate in the employment contract and rules of employment that misconduct directly affecting interpersonal relations and service quality—such as discourtesy to customers, causing conflicts among colleagues, and disturbing internal order—constitutes grounds for discipline and dismissal. Where such violations are repeated, employers should document specific dates, locations, persons involved, and details through written records, statements, CCTV footage, customer complaint records, etc., and manage these in a way that can demonstrate that step‑by‑step measures such as warnings, training, and reassignment were taken. When a decision to dismiss is made, the employer must, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, specify in writing the grounds and effective date of dismissal, and preserve evidence that the notice was actually delivered to and received by the employee. It is advisable to operate a consistent procedure for obtaining the employee’s signature on the dismissal notice, and, in cases where the employee refuses to sign, to supplement the record with signatures of HR personnel or witnesses, or by using content‑certified mail, so as to minimize disputes over procedural defects. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Justifiability of the Grounds for Dismissal The employee’s conduct of “being discourteous to customers” and “causing conflict among fellow employees” falls under the grounds set forth in Article 9(4)6 of the employment contract. In light of the nature of the company’s business, the employee’s repeated misconduct constitutes justifiable grounds for dismissal, and thus the employer cannot be said to have abused its discretionary authority. B. Legality of the Dismissal Procedure Although there was disagreement between the parties as to whether the employee took a photograph of the dismissal notice, setting this aside, it was confirmed that the employee signed the dismissal notice delivered by the employer. As the legislative purpose of written notice and the employee’s ability to respond in the future were not impaired in any way, there was no procedural defect on the part of the employer … 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Justifiability of the Grounds for Dismissal The employee’s conduct of “being discourteous to customers” and “causing conflict among fellow employees” falls under the grounds set forth in Article 9(4)6 of the employment contract. In light of the nature of the company’s business, the employee’s repeated misconduct constitutes justifiable grounds for dismissal, and thus the employer cannot be said to have abused its discretionary authority. B. Legality of the Dismissal Procedure Although there was disagreement between the parties as to whether the employee took a photograph of the dismissal notice, setting this aside, it was confirmed that the employee signed the dismissal notice delivered by the employer. As the legislative purpose of written notice and the employee’s ability to respond in the future were not impaired in any way, there was no procedural defect on the part of the employer … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, justifiability of disciplinary dismissal (discourtesy to customers · conflict with colleagues), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · noncompliance with work instructions, performance evaluation · poor performance, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Employee Headcount Requirement (Registration of Employer’s Family Members)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to justifiability of disciplinary dismissal (discourtesy to customers · conflict with colleagues) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Justifiability of Disciplinary Dismissal (Discourtesy to Customers · Conflict with Colleagues).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article