Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to “Dismissal for Unauthorized Absence (Violation of Orders)” (Unfair Dismissal 623)
- Date2026/08/14 04:20
- Read 5
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the issue of “dismissal for unauthorized absence (violation of orders)” was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision.
Decision-making body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae124 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-08 · Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Justifiability of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct of “violating work orders, leaving the workplace, and being absent without leave” constitutes grounds for discipline, and the justifiability of the grounds for discipline is recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Under the company’s disciplinary guidelines, dismissal is possible where there are three or more unauthorized absences in a month or five or more consecutive unauthorized absences. In light of the fact that the employee’s period of unauthorized absence far exceeded this, it cannot be viewed that the disciplinary dismissal of the employee is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms or that it constitutes a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on an employee on the grounds of violation of work orders, leaving the workplace, and a prolonged period of unauthorized absence. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and the matter proceeded through both the first-instance Labor Relations Commission and reconsideration before the Central Labor Relations Commission.
The Central Labor Relations Commission focused on whether the dismissal was unfair, whether the level of discipline was appropriate, and whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful, and ultimately upheld the conclusion of the first-instance decision.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is: “Where there has been a violation of work orders and a prolonged period of unauthorized absence, is a disciplinary dismissal based on unauthorized absence exceeding the company’s disciplinary standards a dismissal that is justified in light of social norms, or does it constitute an unfair dismissal?”
In addition, whether the disciplinary procedures—such as notification of the grounds for discipline and the provision of an opportunity to explain—were lawfully conducted was also at issue.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case noted that the employee violated the employer’s legitimate work orders, left the workplace, and continued to be absent without leave; that under the company’s rules of employment and disciplinary guidelines, “where there are three or more unauthorized absences in a month or five or more consecutive unauthorized absences, disciplinary dismissal is possible,” and the actual period of unauthorized absence far exceeded this; and that the employee was specifically aware of the grounds for discipline and was given an opportunity to explain before the disciplinary committee.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that the employee’s conduct constituted grounds for discipline that seriously infringed the basic contractual obligation to provide labor and workplace order. It further held that the disciplinary guidelines themselves were not markedly unreasonable, nor could they be seen as targeting a specific employee, and that the disciplinary dismissal in this case could not be regarded as having clearly lost its validity in light of social norms. Accordingly, it did not constitute a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
In conclusion, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was a justified disciplinary dismissal that does not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it must be borne in mind that prolonged unauthorized absence or repeated absences, in and of themselves, can lead to disciplinary dismissal. In particular, where the company’s rules of employment specifically stipulate the standards for unauthorized absence and the corresponding levels of discipline, if absences accumulate in excess of those standards, there is a high likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of the dismissal.
In addition, where there are legitimate reasons related to violation of work orders or leaving the workplace (such as illness, industrial accident, childcare, etc.), it is important, if at all possible, to notify the company in advance or as promptly as possible and to submit supporting documentation so that the situation does not become one of “unauthorized” absence. If an opportunity to explain is given during the disciplinary process, the employee should not forgo it but should actively and specifically explain the relevant circumstances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, first, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and disciplinary guidelines the grounds for discipline—such as unauthorized absence and violation of work orders—and the corresponding levels of discipline. Second, the company should retain objective records regarding the actual number of days absent, the circumstances of the absences, and the contents of any instructions that were violated (such as attendance records, written instructions, text messages/emails, records of requests for written explanations, etc.) in order to secure evidentiary support for the grounds for discipline.
Third, because disciplinary dismissal is the most severe sanction for an employee, the company should document the procedures—such as convening the disciplinary committee, giving notice of the grounds, date, and place, and providing an opportunity to explain—and should record in the minutes and resolutions the specific grounds for discipline and the basis for the level of discipline imposed. Fourth, unlike “redundancy dismissals,” disciplinary dismissals are premised on the employee’s individual misconduct. Therefore, if the company organizes and is able to explain the circumstances demonstrating the need to maintain corporate order and the difficulty of continuing the employment relationship, this will be advantageous in responding before the Labor Relations Commission.
In cases of this type, it is advisable to prepare in advance, through consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, by refining disciplinary regulations and developing early-stage response strategies for potential unfair dismissal disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct of “violating work orders, leaving the workplace, and being absent without leave” constitutes grounds for discipline, and the justifiability of the grounds for discipline is recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Under the company’s disciplinary guidelines, dismissal is possible where there are three or more unauthorized absences in a month or five or more consecutive unauthorized absences. In light of the fact that the employee’s period of unauthorized absence far exceeded this, it cannot be viewed that the disciplinary dismissal of the employee is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms or that it constitutes a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee was specifically aware of the grounds for discipline and was given an opportunity to explain …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct of “violating work orders, leaving the workplace, and being absent without leave” constitutes grounds for discipline, and the justifiability of the grounds for discipline is recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Under the company’s disciplinary guidelines, dismissal is possible where there are three or more unauthorized absences in a month or five or more consecutive unauthorized absences. In light of the fact that the employee’s period of unauthorized absence far exceeded this, it cannot be viewed that the disciplinary dismissal of the employee is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms or that it constitutes a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee was specifically aware of the grounds for discipline and was given an opportunity to explain … /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Dispute over Existence of Dismissal (Consultation on Reduction of Working Hours)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal for unauthorized absence (violation of orders), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Dispute over Existence of Dismissal (Consultation on Reduction of Working Hours)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents relating to dismissal for unauthorized absence (violation of orders) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Relating to Dismissal for Unauthorized Absence (Violation of Orders).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the issue of “dismissal for unauthorized absence (violation of orders)” was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision.
Decision-making body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae124 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-08 · Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Justifiability of grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct of “violating work orders, leaving the workplace, and being absent without leave” constitutes grounds for discipline, and the justifiability of the grounds for discipline is recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Under the company’s disciplinary guidelines, dismissal is possible where there are three or more unauthorized absences in a month or five or more consecutive unauthorized absences. In light of the fact that the employee’s period of unauthorized absence far exceeded this, it cannot be viewed that the disciplinary dismissal of the employee is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms or that it constitutes a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on an employee on the grounds of violation of work orders, leaving the workplace, and a prolonged period of unauthorized absence. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and the matter proceeded through both the first-instance Labor Relations Commission and reconsideration before the Central Labor Relations Commission.
The Central Labor Relations Commission focused on whether the dismissal was unfair, whether the level of discipline was appropriate, and whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful, and ultimately upheld the conclusion of the first-instance decision.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is: “Where there has been a violation of work orders and a prolonged period of unauthorized absence, is a disciplinary dismissal based on unauthorized absence exceeding the company’s disciplinary standards a dismissal that is justified in light of social norms, or does it constitute an unfair dismissal?”
In addition, whether the disciplinary procedures—such as notification of the grounds for discipline and the provision of an opportunity to explain—were lawfully conducted was also at issue.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case noted that the employee violated the employer’s legitimate work orders, left the workplace, and continued to be absent without leave; that under the company’s rules of employment and disciplinary guidelines, “where there are three or more unauthorized absences in a month or five or more consecutive unauthorized absences, disciplinary dismissal is possible,” and the actual period of unauthorized absence far exceeded this; and that the employee was specifically aware of the grounds for discipline and was given an opportunity to explain before the disciplinary committee.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that the employee’s conduct constituted grounds for discipline that seriously infringed the basic contractual obligation to provide labor and workplace order. It further held that the disciplinary guidelines themselves were not markedly unreasonable, nor could they be seen as targeting a specific employee, and that the disciplinary dismissal in this case could not be regarded as having clearly lost its validity in light of social norms. Accordingly, it did not constitute a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
In conclusion, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was a justified disciplinary dismissal that does not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it must be borne in mind that prolonged unauthorized absence or repeated absences, in and of themselves, can lead to disciplinary dismissal. In particular, where the company’s rules of employment specifically stipulate the standards for unauthorized absence and the corresponding levels of discipline, if absences accumulate in excess of those standards, there is a high likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of the dismissal.
In addition, where there are legitimate reasons related to violation of work orders or leaving the workplace (such as illness, industrial accident, childcare, etc.), it is important, if at all possible, to notify the company in advance or as promptly as possible and to submit supporting documentation so that the situation does not become one of “unauthorized” absence. If an opportunity to explain is given during the disciplinary process, the employee should not forgo it but should actively and specifically explain the relevant circumstances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, first, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and disciplinary guidelines the grounds for discipline—such as unauthorized absence and violation of work orders—and the corresponding levels of discipline. Second, the company should retain objective records regarding the actual number of days absent, the circumstances of the absences, and the contents of any instructions that were violated (such as attendance records, written instructions, text messages/emails, records of requests for written explanations, etc.) in order to secure evidentiary support for the grounds for discipline.
Third, because disciplinary dismissal is the most severe sanction for an employee, the company should document the procedures—such as convening the disciplinary committee, giving notice of the grounds, date, and place, and providing an opportunity to explain—and should record in the minutes and resolutions the specific grounds for discipline and the basis for the level of discipline imposed. Fourth, unlike “redundancy dismissals,” disciplinary dismissals are premised on the employee’s individual misconduct. Therefore, if the company organizes and is able to explain the circumstances demonstrating the need to maintain corporate order and the difficulty of continuing the employment relationship, this will be advantageous in responding before the Labor Relations Commission.
In cases of this type, it is advisable to prepare in advance, through consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, by refining disciplinary regulations and developing early-stage response strategies for potential unfair dismissal disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct of “violating work orders, leaving the workplace, and being absent without leave” constitutes grounds for discipline, and the justifiability of the grounds for discipline is recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Under the company’s disciplinary guidelines, dismissal is possible where there are three or more unauthorized absences in a month or five or more consecutive unauthorized absences. In light of the fact that the employee’s period of unauthorized absence far exceeded this, it cannot be viewed that the disciplinary dismissal of the employee is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms or that it constitutes a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee was specifically aware of the grounds for discipline and was given an opportunity to explain …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
The employee’s conduct of “violating work orders, leaving the workplace, and being absent without leave” constitutes grounds for discipline, and the justifiability of the grounds for discipline is recognized.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Under the company’s disciplinary guidelines, dismissal is possible where there are three or more unauthorized absences in a month or five or more consecutive unauthorized absences. In light of the fact that the employee’s period of unauthorized absence far exceeded this, it cannot be viewed that the disciplinary dismissal of the employee is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms or that it constitutes a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee was specifically aware of the grounds for discipline and was given an opportunity to explain … /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Dispute over Existence of Dismissal (Consultation on Reduction of Working Hours)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal for unauthorized absence (violation of orders), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Dispute over Existence of Dismissal (Consultation on Reduction of Working Hours)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents relating to dismissal for unauthorized absence (violation of orders) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Relating to Dismissal for Unauthorized Absence (Violation of Orders).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
