[Case Information] This case is a decision on the issue of “disciplinary sanction level (participation in services for another institution),” concluded under case number 2025부해1086. Decision date: 2025-05-21 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2025부해1086 Summary of key issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline: It was confirmed that, without permission, during working hours the employee engaged in services for another institution unrelated to his/her original duties, and that a report was made to the other institution that the employee had directly participated in the services, thereby damaging the employer’s reputation and trust. The employee did not deny these facts, so grounds for discipline were recognized. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: (i) All grounds for discipline were recognized; (ii) the employee had received training on job ethics 12 times, so it was impossible not to know that the company would treat participation in outside services without permission as a highly sensitive matter; (iii) … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee received a three‑month salary reduction (pay cut) as a disciplinary sanction for, among other things, engaging without permission in services for another institution during working hours. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the sanction constituted an unfair disciplinary action tantamount to unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a comprehensive review of the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the legality of the disciplinary procedures, based on the employer’s arguments and supporting materials submitted through its representative, Labor Law Firm Law&. The Commission found that all grounds for discipline were established and that the level of discipline—a three‑month salary reduction—could not be regarded as markedly excessive by social standards, and therefore ruled in favor of the employer. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether a three‑month salary reduction imposed for engaging without authorization in services for another institution during working hours can be viewed as an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary power in determining disciplinary sanctions. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case took into account the following: it was established that the employee, without the employer’s permission, engaged during working hours in services for another institution that were unrelated to his/her original duties; in the course of this, a report was made that the employee had directly participated in the services, thereby damaging the employer’s reputation and trust; and the employee had received training on job ethics as many as 12 times, and thus could fully recognize that the company viewed concurrent employment and participation in outside services in a very strict manner. The panel also considered that the employee held a position in which he/she should naturally have been aware that participation in services for another institution was prohibited; that there had been prior cases in which salary reductions were imposed for similar or identical misconduct such as neglect of duty and violation of rules on concurrent employment; and that, under the company’s disciplinary standards, a salary reduction constitutes a minor disciplinary measure, far lighter than severe sanctions such as dismissal or suspension. Accordingly, the panel concluded that all grounds for discipline existed, and that, in light of the disciplinary standards, prior cases, and the nature of the misconduct, a three‑month salary reduction could not be deemed to have clearly lost its reasonableness by social standards. Therefore, the disciplinary action in this case could not be regarded as an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary power in determining disciplinary sanctions. The panel also found that the procedures were lawful, as the disciplinary committee was convened following written notice, and the employee was given an opportunity to attend and present explanations. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should be aware that engaging in the work of another institution or company during working hours may be evaluated as concurrent employment and neglect of duty, and may constitute grounds for discipline such as a salary reduction. In particular, where the company has repeatedly provided training on job ethics and prohibitions on concurrent employment, a claim of “I did not know” is rarely accepted. Employees should therefore obtain prior approval before participating in any external services. Furthermore, even in the case of a minor disciplinary measure such as a salary reduction, if clear misconduct is established and the sanction is consistent with the company’s disciplinary standards and prior cases, it will be difficult to overturn the decision before the Labor Relations Commission. It is important to carefully review the facts, training history, and internal regulations, and then identify the precise points of contention. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to clearly set out rules prohibiting concurrent employment and participation in external services in the rules of employment and codes of ethics, and to sufficiently notify and impress these upon employees through regular job ethics training. When imposing discipline, employers should establish disciplinary standards in advance and maintain records of how similar cases have been handled, so as to ensure consistent treatment. This is key to responding to allegations of abuse of discretionary power in imposing discipline. In addition, employers should document procedural requirements such as notices convening the disciplinary committee and the provision of opportunities for attendance and explanation. When determining the level of sanctions—such as salary reduction, suspension, or dismissal—employers should comprehensively consider the nature of the duties, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, and the extent of damage to the company’s reputation and trust, and decide on a level that is not excessive by social standards. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission found that all grounds for discipline were established, that the level of discipline was not excessive in light of the seriousness of the misconduct, and that the procedures were lawful, and therefore held that the three‑month salary reduction was justified. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Existence of grounds for discipline It was confirmed that the employee, without permission, engaged during working hours in services for another institution that were unrelated to his/her original duties, and that a report was made to the other institution that the employee had directly participated in the services, thereby damaging the employer’s reputation and trust. The employee did not deny these facts, so grounds for discipline were recognized. b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline Taking into account (i) that all grounds for discipline were established; (ii) that the employee had received training on job ethics 12 times and therefore could not have been unaware that the company would treat participation in services without permission as a highly sensitive matter; (iii) that the employee held a position in which he/she should have been aware that direct involvement in services for another institution was prohibited; (iv) that there were prior cases in which salary reductions had been imposed for neglect of duty and violations of rules on concurrent employment; and (v) that, in light of the disciplinary standards, a salary reduction constitutes a minor disciplinary measure, the Commission concluded that it was difficult to view the sanction as an excess of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline. c. Legality of the disciplinary procedures Because the convening of the disciplinary committee was notified in writing and the employee attended and presented explanations, the disciplinary procedures were found to be lawful. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction Level (Negligent Management/Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)’” – Decision date: 2025-11-03 - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary sanction level (participation in services for another institution), 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 Concerning ‘Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary sanction level (participation in services for another institution) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Sanction Level (Participation in Services for Another Institution).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article