Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Conflict over Request for Face-to-Face Meeting with Subcontractor)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 484)
- Date2026/05/26 04:12
- Read 70
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was dismissed for cause on the grounds that he had requested that a subcontractor’s employee share his vacation schedule and had reprimanded an executive of the subcontractor. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined whether grounds for discipline existed, whether the level of discipline was appropriate, and whether there were any procedural defects in the disciplinary process, and determined whether the dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, even if some misconduct occurred in the course of conflict with a subcontractor, the employer’s choice of dismissal as a disciplinary measure, in light of the nature and degree of that misconduct, amounted to an abuse of the employer’s discretion in imposing discipline.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee’s act of asking a subcontractor’s employee to share his vacation schedule in advance fell within the scope of an ordinary request for work-related cooperation and was difficult to regard as improper interference in management; that the allegation that the employee publicly reprimanded a subcontractor’s executive was not clearly proven and thus could not readily be accepted as a ground for discipline; but that the act of requesting a face-to-face explanation from a subcontractor’s employee and then, in reality, only briefly meeting to receive samples could reasonably be perceived by the subcontractor as improper and could therefore be viewed, in a limited way, as a ground for discipline.
The dismissal in this case was held to be an unfair dismissal because not all of the alleged grounds for discipline were established, the misconduct that was established consisted of expressions made in the course of performing work and did not rise to the level of seriously undermining corporate order, and, in light of Supreme Court precedent that disciplinary dismissal must be chosen as a last resort only where there is a grave reason such that continuation of the employment relationship is impossible under social norms, the level of discipline was an excessively severe measure that had clearly lost its reasonableness in terms of social norms.
In addition, the employee did not challenge any defects in the disciplinary procedure, and the employer notified the employee to appear before the personnel committee, convened the committee, resolved to impose discipline, and notified the result in writing. Taking these factors into account, the Commission found that the disciplinary procedure itself was lawful, but, separate from the lawfulness of the procedure, the dismissal still constituted an unfair dismissal because the level of discipline was excessively severe. This is a notable feature of the decision.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even where statements or conduct occur in the context of conflict with a subcontractor, it is necessary to always bear in mind how the other party could objectively perceive such conduct and what impact it may have on the company’s external credibility. However, even where the employer cites multiple instances of misconduct in a general manner as grounds for discipline, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts will individually examine the existence and degree of each ground for discipline, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, and whether the conduct was an expression made in the course of performing work, and will separately review whether the level of discipline is excessive in light of social norms.
To obtain relief in similar unfair dismissal cases, it is important to distinguish and organize the facts that can actually be proven from the legal significance of each ground for discipline, and to specifically explain whether the misconduct was an unavoidable expression arising in the course of performing work and whether it fell short of seriously disrupting corporate order.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when disciplining an employee on the grounds of conflict arising in the relationship with a subcontractor, it is necessary to clearly distinguish which acts constitute legitimate work-related expressions and which acts amount to misconduct that undermines corporate order, and to specify the grounds for discipline accordingly. Even if multiple grounds for discipline are cited, if only some of them are ultimately recognized, the level of discipline may be found to be excessive. Therefore, it is necessary to select the level of discipline step by step, comprehensively considering the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, the degree of harm, the likelihood of recurrence, and the employee’s past work attitude.
Furthermore, even if the disciplinary procedure is lawfully conducted in accordance with the rules of employment and collective agreements and the result is notified in writing, if the disciplinary dismissal has clearly lost its reasonableness in terms of social norms, it may still be found to be an unfair dismissal by the Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, the exercise of disciplinary authority should be based on the principle that “dismissal is a last resort,” and employers should carefully consider whether the intended purpose can be achieved through milder sanctions such as pay cuts or suspension.
To prevail in this type of unfair dismissal dispute, it is essential to fully understand in advance the legal principles governing the determination of disciplinary severity as presented by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, and to organize and prove the facts in a manner consistent with those principles. It is advisable to consult with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance to review the constituent elements of grounds for discipline, the differences in standards between redundancy dismissals and ordinary disciplinary dismissals, and recent case law trends relating to the severity of discipline.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s act of asking a subcontractor’s employee to share his vacation schedule in advance does not constitute improper interference in management, and the allegation that the employee publicly reprimanded a subcontractor’s executive is not clearly proven, making it difficult to recognize these as grounds for discipline. However, the act of requesting a face-to-face explanation from a subcontractor’s employee and then, despite that request, only briefly meeting to receive samples can reasonably be perceived by the subcontractor as improper and is therefore recognized as a ground for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Only some of the grounds for discipline are recognized, and the employee’s misconduct consisted of expressions made in the course of performing work. In light of these factors, the level of discipline is excessive.
c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
The employee did not allege any defects in the disciplinary procedure. The employer notified the employee to appear before the personnel committee, convened the committee, resolved to impose discipline, and notified the disciplinary result in writing. Accordingly, there were no procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s act of asking a subcontractor’s employee to share his vacation schedule in advance does not constitute improper interference in management, and the allegation that the employee publicly reprimanded a subcontractor’s executive is not clearly proven, making it difficult to recognize these as grounds for discipline. However, the act of requesting a face-to-face explanation from a subcontractor’s employee and then, despite that request, only briefly meeting to receive samples can reasonably be perceived by the subcontractor as improper and is therefore recognized as a ground for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Only some of the grounds for discipline are recognized, and the employee’s misconduct consisted of expressions made in the course of performing work. In light of these factors, the level of discipline is excessive.
c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
The employee did not allege any defects in the disciplinary procedure. The employer notified the employee to appear before the personnel committee, convened the committee, resolved to impose discipline, and notified the disciplinary result in writing. Accordingly, there were no procedural defects.
/
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Workplace Bullying (Attendance Record Inquiry)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
- ‘Termination by Agreement (Text Message Consenting to Resignation upon Recommendation · Re-employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (conflict over request for face-to-face meeting with subcontractor), disciplinary dismissal, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Termination by Agreement (Text Message Consenting to Resignation upon Recommendation · Re-employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (conflict over request for face-to-face meeting with subcontractor) can be viewed together on the “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Conflict over Request for Face-to-Face Meeting with Subcontractor) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was dismissed for cause on the grounds that he had requested that a subcontractor’s employee share his vacation schedule and had reprimanded an executive of the subcontractor. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined whether grounds for discipline existed, whether the level of discipline was appropriate, and whether there were any procedural defects in the disciplinary process, and determined whether the dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, even if some misconduct occurred in the course of conflict with a subcontractor, the employer’s choice of dismissal as a disciplinary measure, in light of the nature and degree of that misconduct, amounted to an abuse of the employer’s discretion in imposing discipline.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee’s act of asking a subcontractor’s employee to share his vacation schedule in advance fell within the scope of an ordinary request for work-related cooperation and was difficult to regard as improper interference in management; that the allegation that the employee publicly reprimanded a subcontractor’s executive was not clearly proven and thus could not readily be accepted as a ground for discipline; but that the act of requesting a face-to-face explanation from a subcontractor’s employee and then, in reality, only briefly meeting to receive samples could reasonably be perceived by the subcontractor as improper and could therefore be viewed, in a limited way, as a ground for discipline.
The dismissal in this case was held to be an unfair dismissal because not all of the alleged grounds for discipline were established, the misconduct that was established consisted of expressions made in the course of performing work and did not rise to the level of seriously undermining corporate order, and, in light of Supreme Court precedent that disciplinary dismissal must be chosen as a last resort only where there is a grave reason such that continuation of the employment relationship is impossible under social norms, the level of discipline was an excessively severe measure that had clearly lost its reasonableness in terms of social norms.
In addition, the employee did not challenge any defects in the disciplinary procedure, and the employer notified the employee to appear before the personnel committee, convened the committee, resolved to impose discipline, and notified the result in writing. Taking these factors into account, the Commission found that the disciplinary procedure itself was lawful, but, separate from the lawfulness of the procedure, the dismissal still constituted an unfair dismissal because the level of discipline was excessively severe. This is a notable feature of the decision.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even where statements or conduct occur in the context of conflict with a subcontractor, it is necessary to always bear in mind how the other party could objectively perceive such conduct and what impact it may have on the company’s external credibility. However, even where the employer cites multiple instances of misconduct in a general manner as grounds for discipline, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts will individually examine the existence and degree of each ground for discipline, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, and whether the conduct was an expression made in the course of performing work, and will separately review whether the level of discipline is excessive in light of social norms.
To obtain relief in similar unfair dismissal cases, it is important to distinguish and organize the facts that can actually be proven from the legal significance of each ground for discipline, and to specifically explain whether the misconduct was an unavoidable expression arising in the course of performing work and whether it fell short of seriously disrupting corporate order.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when disciplining an employee on the grounds of conflict arising in the relationship with a subcontractor, it is necessary to clearly distinguish which acts constitute legitimate work-related expressions and which acts amount to misconduct that undermines corporate order, and to specify the grounds for discipline accordingly. Even if multiple grounds for discipline are cited, if only some of them are ultimately recognized, the level of discipline may be found to be excessive. Therefore, it is necessary to select the level of discipline step by step, comprehensively considering the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, the degree of harm, the likelihood of recurrence, and the employee’s past work attitude.
Furthermore, even if the disciplinary procedure is lawfully conducted in accordance with the rules of employment and collective agreements and the result is notified in writing, if the disciplinary dismissal has clearly lost its reasonableness in terms of social norms, it may still be found to be an unfair dismissal by the Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, the exercise of disciplinary authority should be based on the principle that “dismissal is a last resort,” and employers should carefully consider whether the intended purpose can be achieved through milder sanctions such as pay cuts or suspension.
To prevail in this type of unfair dismissal dispute, it is essential to fully understand in advance the legal principles governing the determination of disciplinary severity as presented by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, and to organize and prove the facts in a manner consistent with those principles. It is advisable to consult with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance to review the constituent elements of grounds for discipline, the differences in standards between redundancy dismissals and ordinary disciplinary dismissals, and recent case law trends relating to the severity of discipline.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s act of asking a subcontractor’s employee to share his vacation schedule in advance does not constitute improper interference in management, and the allegation that the employee publicly reprimanded a subcontractor’s executive is not clearly proven, making it difficult to recognize these as grounds for discipline. However, the act of requesting a face-to-face explanation from a subcontractor’s employee and then, despite that request, only briefly meeting to receive samples can reasonably be perceived by the subcontractor as improper and is therefore recognized as a ground for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Only some of the grounds for discipline are recognized, and the employee’s misconduct consisted of expressions made in the course of performing work. In light of these factors, the level of discipline is excessive.
c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
The employee did not allege any defects in the disciplinary procedure. The employer notified the employee to appear before the personnel committee, convened the committee, resolved to impose discipline, and notified the disciplinary result in writing. Accordingly, there were no procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s act of asking a subcontractor’s employee to share his vacation schedule in advance does not constitute improper interference in management, and the allegation that the employee publicly reprimanded a subcontractor’s executive is not clearly proven, making it difficult to recognize these as grounds for discipline. However, the act of requesting a face-to-face explanation from a subcontractor’s employee and then, despite that request, only briefly meeting to receive samples can reasonably be perceived by the subcontractor as improper and is therefore recognized as a ground for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Only some of the grounds for discipline are recognized, and the employee’s misconduct consisted of expressions made in the course of performing work. In light of these factors, the level of discipline is excessive.
c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
The employee did not allege any defects in the disciplinary procedure. The employer notified the employee to appear before the personnel committee, convened the committee, resolved to impose discipline, and notified the disciplinary result in writing. Accordingly, there were no procedural defects.
/
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Workplace Bullying (Attendance Record Inquiry)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
- ‘Termination by Agreement (Text Message Consenting to Resignation upon Recommendation · Re-employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (conflict over request for face-to-face meeting with subcontractor), disciplinary dismissal, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Termination by Agreement (Text Message Consenting to Resignation upon Recommendation · Re-employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (conflict over request for face-to-face meeting with subcontractor) can be viewed together on the “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Conflict over Request for Face-to-Face Meeting with Subcontractor) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
