[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (traffic accident · office disturbance)” was examined and the initial decision was ultimately upheld. Adjudicating Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae509 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-04 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld Summary of Key Issues: A. Whether grounds for discipline existed The worker’s acts of raising his voice and causing a disturbance in the company office on January 6 and March 25, 2025, fall under the grounds for discipline prescribed in the employer’s personnel regulations. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case before the Central Labor Relations Commission, the worker was dismissed for cause on the grounds that he raised his voice and caused a disturbance in the office, and for the manner in which he handled and reported a traffic accident. After the worker applied for a remedy for unfair dismissal, the first‑instance Labor Relations Commission partially upheld the worker’s claims. Both the employer and the worker then proceeded to re‑examination, and the Central Labor Relations Commission ultimately determined whether the dismissal was unfair and whether the level of discipline was appropriate. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The key issue in this case is: “In a dismissal for cause based on disturbance in the office and non‑compliance with work instructions related to a traffic accident, to what extent each ground for discipline is recognized by the Labor Relations Commission, and whether dismissal is a justifiable level of discipline even in light of those circumstances.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The adjudicating panel in this case found that the worker’s acts of raising his voice and causing a disturbance in the company office on January 6 and March 25, 2025, constituted grounds for discipline as set out in the personnel regulations. On the other hand, it held that it was difficult to regard the worker’s conduct on March 23, 2025—reaching a settlement with the other party after a traffic accident and, when reporting the accident, not submitting the other party’s name, contact information, license plate number, and photographs of the damaged area—as rising to the level of “non‑compliance with work instructions (failure to report – traffic accident).” Taking into account the established legal principle that disciplinary action must be exercised not only on the basis of just cause and proper procedure but also within a range that does not clearly deviate from social norms of reasonableness, the panel held that, where only part of the alleged grounds for discipline are recognized, dismissal may be excessive. Accordingly, the panel held that, although some grounds for discipline existed, it was difficult to treat the failure to fully report the traffic accident as an independent ground for discipline, and that, in light of all the circumstances, dismissal was excessively severe by social standards and constituted an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline. The dismissal was therefore found to be unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that acts such as raising one’s voice and causing a disturbance in the office can in fact be recognized as grounds for discipline under personnel regulations. However, when dealing with incidents that occur in the course of work, such as traffic accidents, it is crucial in any dispute over unfair dismissal to carefully organize and document: what exactly the company instructed you to report and how, whether those instructions were reasonable and clear, and to what extent you actually complied. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, grounds for discipline such as office disturbances and violations of the duty to report traffic accidents should be set out in concrete terms in the rules of employment and personnel regulations. In particular, for traffic accident reporting, the “reporting items (counterparty’s personal details, license plate number, photographs, etc.)” and the “method and deadline for reporting” should be clearly documented in writing. In addition, in light of the Supreme Court and Labor Relations Commission’s jurisprudence that dismissal for cause is subject to far stricter limitations than other disciplinary measures, it is advisable to comprehensively consider the nature and frequency of the misconduct, its impact on the company, and whether any damage has been remedied, and to first consider less severe measures such as warnings, pay cuts, or suspension. This will help prevent disputes. In unfair dismissal cases of this type, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts repeatedly emphasize that the inquiry does not end with the existence of grounds for discipline and compliance with procedures; they also closely examine whether the level of discipline is not excessively severe by social standards. Both workers and employers therefore need to prepare separately on the issues of “the scope in which grounds for discipline are recognized” and “the proportionality of the level of discipline.” (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Adjudicated A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Whether grounds for discipline existed The worker’s acts of raising his voice and causing a disturbance in the company office on January 6 and March 25, 2025, fall under the grounds for discipline prescribed in the employer’s personnel regulations. However, it cannot be concluded that the worker violated his duty to report the accident merely because, after voluntarily reaching a settlement with the other party to the accident on March 23, 2025, he notified the employer of the occurrence of the accident without reporting the other party’s name, contact information, license plate number, and photographs of the damaged area. Accordingly, the alleged non‑compliance with work instructions dated March 23, 2025 (failure to report – traffic accident) cannot be recognized as a ground for discipline. B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate … 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether grounds for discipline existed The worker’s acts of raising his voice and causing a disturbance in the company office on January 6 and March 25, 2025, fall under the grounds for discipline prescribed in the employer’s personnel regulations. However, it cannot be concluded that the worker violated his duty to report the accident merely because, after voluntarily reaching a settlement with the other party to the accident on March 23, 2025, he notified the employer of the occurrence of the accident without reporting the other party’s name, contact information, license plate number, and photographs of the damaged area. Accordingly, the alleged non‑compliance with work instructions dated March 23, 2025 (failure to report – traffic accident) cannot be recognized as a ground for discipline. B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate … / [More Related Decisions] - ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld - ‘Refusal to Renew (Two‑Year Cumulative Performance Evaluation Indicators)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (traffic accident · office disturbance), dismissal for cause, 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Refusal to Renew (Two‑Year Cumulative Performance Evaluation Indicators)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (traffic accident · office disturbance) can be viewed together in the “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Traffic Accident · Office Disturbance) Related Decisions” section. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article