[Case Information] This case is a decision on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (negligent supervision and management),” concluded under case number 2025부해985. Date of decision: 2025-12-31 · Decision-making body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2025부해985 Summary of key issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee’s neglect of his/her duty to supervise and manage staff, resulting in negligent performance of duties, constitutes a breach of the duty of good faith under Article 9 of the Rules of Employment and therefore falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 34 of the Personnel Management Regulations. However, the additional grounds for discipline asserted beyond the original grounds were not proven by the employer, and thus cannot be recognized as valid grounds for discipline. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer imposed a one-month suspension from duty on the employee on the ground of negligent supervision and management. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair labor practice, and the matter was contested before the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission as an unfair dismissal case. The Commission partially acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline, while at the same time examining the appropriateness of the level of discipline and whether the employer’s conduct constituted an unfair labor practice. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issues in this case are: “In a situation where the ground for discipline of negligent supervision and management is recognized, whether additional grounds for discipline newly asserted by the employer can be taken into account; whether, in light of the overall degree of misconduct, a one-month suspension is manifestly excessive by social standards; and whether such disciplinary action constitutes an unfair labor practice.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel held that the employee’s neglect of his/her duty to supervise and manage staff, resulting in negligent performance of duties, constitutes a breach of the duty of good faith under the Rules of Employment and therefore is a valid ground for discipline. On the other hand, the new grounds for discipline added to the original grounds were not proven by the employer and thus could not be recognized as grounds for discipline. Because matters not recognized as grounds for discipline cannot be used to aggravate the level of discipline, the Commission ultimately found, in light of the nature and degree of the original misconduct, the company’s disciplinary standards, and consistency with similar cases, that a one-month suspension was an excessively severe measure that exceeded and abused the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline, and therefore recognized the unfairness of the disciplinary action. The Commission also found that the disciplinary procedure had been conducted in accordance with the relevant rules and that there were no procedural defects, and that there were no circumstances or evidence indicating that the discipline was imposed because of union activities. Accordingly, the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice could not be recognized. On this basis, the Commission held that although the discipline was unfair, it did not constitute an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment or domination/interference. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, when discipline becomes an issue, it is important to contest to the end what specific facts the employer is relying on as grounds for discipline and which of those facts are actually proven. If the level of discipline appears excessive, the employee should actively argue abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline, based on the content and degree of the grounds for discipline, the company’s disciplinary standards, and consistency with similar cases. At the same time, to have the employer’s conduct recognized as an unfair labor practice such as union-busting, separate and concrete evidence commensurate with such an allegation is required. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, when imposing discipline, it is necessary to secure objective evidence for all acts of misconduct relied upon as grounds for discipline and to organize such evidence in a manner that can be proven at the Labor Relations Commission or in court. In determining the level of discipline, the employer should comprehensively consider the standards for disciplinary measures set out in the Rules of Employment and personnel regulations, the nature and consequences of the misconduct, and consistency with past disciplinary cases, so as to maintain a level that is reasonable by social standards. In cases involving discipline of union officers or members, it is advisable to clearly separate the grounds for discipline from union activities so as not to invite suspicion of unfair labor practices. To systematically review these points, it is necessary to understand court precedents and Labor Relations Commission decisions on unfair dismissal and the level of disciplinary measures. Employers are advised to consult in advance with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to reduce risk. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that, although the grounds for discipline were recognized, the level of discipline was excessive in light of the degree of misconduct and therefore the disciplinary action was unfair, and that the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice was not established, so the action did not constitute an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment or domination/interference. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee’s neglect of his/her duty to supervise and manage staff, resulting in negligent performance of duties, constitutes a breach of the duty of good faith under Article 9 of the Rules of Employment and therefore falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 34 of the Personnel Management Regulations. However, the additional grounds for discipline asserted beyond the original grounds were not proven by the employer, and thus cannot be recognized as valid grounds for discipline. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Because the additional grounds for discipline are not recognized, they cannot be taken into account in determining the level of discipline. If they are excluded, there is no change from the original grounds for discipline. In light of the nature and degree of the misconduct, the company’s guidelines on the level of discipline, and consistency with other employees, a one-month suspension is deemed to exceed and abuse the limits of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline. c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure There are no defects in terms of procedural legality. d. Whether the Disciplinary Action Constitutes an Unfair Labor Practice in the Form of Disadvantageous Treatment or Domination/Interference It cannot be regarded as having been motivated by the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice, and therefore an unfair labor practice is not recognized. [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: 2025-08-12 - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - · Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (negligent supervision and management), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work orders, 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. ※ The previous article, “‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (negligent supervision and management) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Supervision and Management).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article