Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Disciplinary Measure (Information Leak by HR & General Affairs Team)” (Unfair Dismissal 5)
- Date2025/12/28 22:29
- Read 245
In connection with “disciplinary measures (information leak by HR & General Affairs Team),” an unfair dismissal relief application was heard before the Labor Relations Commission, resulting in a decision in favor of the employer. Labor Law Firm Law& would like to share this decision and its legal implications with you. Although this case concerns disciplinary dismissal, which is different from redundancy dismissal, it is an important precedent for understanding the grounds, proportionality, and procedural standards in unfair dismissal disputes.
1. Legal Implications
The key issue in this case was: “Where an HR & General Affairs Team employee has unlawfully obtained and retained important company information and personnel records, and has repeatedly refused to comply with instructions from a superior, is dismissal a level of disciplinary measure that is socially acceptable and justified?”
The panel in this case, taking into account that the employee attempted to leak important company information externally and transfer internal data to a personal drive; that the employee unlawfully obtained personal data handled by the HR & General Affairs Team, such as by printing and retaining a particular individual’s personnel record card; and that the employee disrupted corporate order by disregarding a superior and refusing to comply with lawful work instructions,
held that, notwithstanding the employee’s arguments that retaining the data was necessary for work, that the employee was not sufficiently informed of the specific grounds for discipline prior to appearing before the disciplinary committee, and that the employee orally requested a review,
the dismissal in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal, because all grounds for discipline were established, the misconduct was serious, and it was difficult to view the employer as having abused its discretion in imposing dismissal.
It is worth reaffirming that the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal is assessed by dividing it into: ① the existence of grounds for discipline, ② the legality of the disciplinary procedure, and ③ the social reasonableness of the level of disciplinary measure. In particular, in positions that handle HR, general affairs, personal data, or confidential information, where misconduct that directly undermines corporate order—such as information leaks, unlawful acquisition of data, or disobedience to a superior’s instructions—is established, dismissal may be recognized as a justified level of disciplinary measure. In practice, it is also an important point that where the notice convening the disciplinary committee specifies the concrete grounds and the employee appears and is given an opportunity to explain, it is difficult to allege procedural defects in the absence of a separate written request for review.
2. Matters Decided
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
① External leak of important company information; ② printing and retention of a particular individual’s personnel record card; ③ attempt to transfer internal company data to a personal drive; and ④ misconduct such as failure to comply with work-related instructions from a superior and inappropriate attitude were all recognized as grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of disciplinary measure was appropriate
Considering ① that all grounds for discipline were established; ② that, as a member of the HR & General Affairs Team, the employee unlawfully obtained and personally retained all kinds of materials handled in the course of work, including internal company information and employees’ personal data, and that the degree of misconduct was very serious and intentional; and ③ that the employee disrupted corporate order by disregarding superiors and refusing to follow instructions, dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s discretion.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
① The email summoning the employee to the disciplinary committee specified the concrete grounds for discipline; ② the employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and presented explanations, so it could not be seen that the employee’s right of defense was restricted; and ③ the employee’s assertion that an oral request for review had been made was difficult to accept. Accordingly, it was determined that there was no defect in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
① External leak of important company information; ② printing and retention of a particular individual’s personnel record card; ③ attempt to transfer internal company data to a personal drive; and ④ misconduct such as failure to comply with work-related instructions from a superior and inappropriate attitude were all recognized as grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of disciplinary measure was appropriate
Considering ① that all grounds for discipline were established; ② that, as a member of the HR & General Affairs Team, the employee unlawfully obtained and personally retained all kinds of materials handled in the course of work, including internal company information and employees’ personal data, and that the degree of misconduct was very serious and intentional; and ③ that the employee disrupted corporate order by disregarding superiors and refusing to follow instructions, dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s discretion.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
① The email summoning the employee to the disciplinary committee specified the concrete grounds for discipline; ② the employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and presented explanations, so it could not be seen that the employee’s right of defense was restricted; and ③ the employee’s assertion that an oral request for review had been made was difficult to accept. Accordingly, it was determined that there was no defect in the disciplinary procedure. /
1. Legal Implications
The key issue in this case was: “Where an HR & General Affairs Team employee has unlawfully obtained and retained important company information and personnel records, and has repeatedly refused to comply with instructions from a superior, is dismissal a level of disciplinary measure that is socially acceptable and justified?”
The panel in this case, taking into account that the employee attempted to leak important company information externally and transfer internal data to a personal drive; that the employee unlawfully obtained personal data handled by the HR & General Affairs Team, such as by printing and retaining a particular individual’s personnel record card; and that the employee disrupted corporate order by disregarding a superior and refusing to comply with lawful work instructions,
held that, notwithstanding the employee’s arguments that retaining the data was necessary for work, that the employee was not sufficiently informed of the specific grounds for discipline prior to appearing before the disciplinary committee, and that the employee orally requested a review,
the dismissal in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal, because all grounds for discipline were established, the misconduct was serious, and it was difficult to view the employer as having abused its discretion in imposing dismissal.
It is worth reaffirming that the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal is assessed by dividing it into: ① the existence of grounds for discipline, ② the legality of the disciplinary procedure, and ③ the social reasonableness of the level of disciplinary measure. In particular, in positions that handle HR, general affairs, personal data, or confidential information, where misconduct that directly undermines corporate order—such as information leaks, unlawful acquisition of data, or disobedience to a superior’s instructions—is established, dismissal may be recognized as a justified level of disciplinary measure. In practice, it is also an important point that where the notice convening the disciplinary committee specifies the concrete grounds and the employee appears and is given an opportunity to explain, it is difficult to allege procedural defects in the absence of a separate written request for review.
2. Matters Decided
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
① External leak of important company information; ② printing and retention of a particular individual’s personnel record card; ③ attempt to transfer internal company data to a personal drive; and ④ misconduct such as failure to comply with work-related instructions from a superior and inappropriate attitude were all recognized as grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of disciplinary measure was appropriate
Considering ① that all grounds for discipline were established; ② that, as a member of the HR & General Affairs Team, the employee unlawfully obtained and personally retained all kinds of materials handled in the course of work, including internal company information and employees’ personal data, and that the degree of misconduct was very serious and intentional; and ③ that the employee disrupted corporate order by disregarding superiors and refusing to follow instructions, dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s discretion.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
① The email summoning the employee to the disciplinary committee specified the concrete grounds for discipline; ② the employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and presented explanations, so it could not be seen that the employee’s right of defense was restricted; and ③ the employee’s assertion that an oral request for review had been made was difficult to accept. Accordingly, it was determined that there was no defect in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
① External leak of important company information; ② printing and retention of a particular individual’s personnel record card; ③ attempt to transfer internal company data to a personal drive; and ④ misconduct such as failure to comply with work-related instructions from a superior and inappropriate attitude were all recognized as grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of disciplinary measure was appropriate
Considering ① that all grounds for discipline were established; ② that, as a member of the HR & General Affairs Team, the employee unlawfully obtained and personally retained all kinds of materials handled in the course of work, including internal company information and employees’ personal data, and that the degree of misconduct was very serious and intentional; and ③ that the employee disrupted corporate order by disregarding superiors and refusing to follow instructions, dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s discretion.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
① The email summoning the employee to the disciplinary committee specified the concrete grounds for discipline; ② the employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and presented explanations, so it could not be seen that the employee’s right of defense was restricted; and ③ the employee’s assertion that an oral request for review had been made was difficult to accept. Accordingly, it was determined that there was no defect in the disciplinary procedure. /
