Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Demand for Chairman’s Resignation · Filing of Petition)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 486)
- Date2026/05/27 04:08
- Read 63
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full (all claims upheld) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (demand for chairman’s resignation · filing of petition).”
Adjudicating body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae120 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.19 · Case result: All claims upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Justifiability of grounds for discipline
There is no dispute between the parties that the employee’s acts of demanding the chairman’s resignation and filing a petition with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, etc. constitute grounds for discipline in violation of the Association’s service regulations.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee of an association demanded the resignation of the former chairman and, in the course of filing a petition with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, received a disciplinary sanction of three months’ suspension on the ground of violating the service regulations. The employee regarded this as a severe disciplinary measure equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the legitimacy of both the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary procedures, but held that the level of discipline violated the principle of proportionality and was therefore unjust, and fully upheld the employee’s application.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Even where both the grounds for discipline, which constitute a violation of the service regulations, and the disciplinary procedures are legitimate, whether the imposition of a three‑month suspension only on a specific employee, in light of the circumstances surrounding the demand for the chairman’s resignation, the filing of the petition with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and the division of roles with colleagues, is so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to violate the principle of proportionality and thus constitute unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Contrary to the employer’s assertions, the panel found no new evidence to support the view that the employee took the lead in the conduct at issue. Rather, the drafting and delivery of the petition proceeded through collective discussions, including division of responsibilities with the heads of various institutions and use of the labor union’s organization. The demand for the chairman’s resignation and the filing of the petition also appeared to stem not from pursuit of private gain or unlawful motives, but from differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of the articles of association and distrust of the former chairman.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that imposing a severe sanction of three months’ suspension only on this employee exceeded the scope of discretion afforded to the disciplinary authority and was clearly unreasonable in light of social norms, thereby violating the principle of proportionality and constituting an unlawful act.
Although the grounds and procedures for the disciplinary dismissal in this case were lawful, the level of discipline was found to be excessive and thus unjust.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should specifically organize and present the motives and circumstances of their conduct, the degree of involvement of other members within the organization, and the connection with the labor union, in order to actively substantiate before the Labor Relations Commission that the level of discipline is excessive.
In particular, where a severe disciplinary measure comparable to unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal has been imposed, it is important, even if the grounds for discipline are acknowledged, to prepare the application for remedy with a focus on whether the sanction is “clearly harsh in light of social norms” and whether “only I have been singled out for disproportionately severe punishment.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where multiple employees are involved in a matter but a severe disciplinary sanction is imposed only on a specific individual, it is necessary to clearly secure reasonable grounds and evidence justifying the heavier sanction on that person.
In addition, when imposing discipline in sensitive matters such as demands for the chairman’s resignation or filing of petitions with external agencies, the employer should comprehensively review the motives and circumstances of the conduct, the structure of internal opinion conflicts, and the impact on labor‑management relations, and, in advance, check with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& whether the level of discipline falls within a range acceptable under social norms.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Justifiability of grounds for discipline
There is no dispute between the parties that the employee’s acts of demanding the chairman’s resignation and filing a petition with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, etc. constitute grounds for discipline in violation of the Association’s service regulations. The justifiability of the grounds for discipline is acknowledged.
B. Justifiability of disciplinary procedures
There is no dispute between the employee and the employer regarding the procedures for the suspension at issue. The justifiability of the disciplinary procedures is also acknowledged.
C. Justifiability of the level of discipline
There is no new evidence to support the view that the employee took the lead in the conduct, and, rather, considering that the drafting of the petition and related matters were carried out through division of work with the heads of institutions, that it is unclear who proposed the idea of requesting cooperation from the labor union and using its organization to disseminate the petition, that the video conference was naturally convened in a situation where heads of institutions with similar views had already formed a consensus, and that the employee’s conduct appears to have arisen not from pursuit of private gain or unlawful motives but from differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of the articles of association and distrust of the former chairman, imposing a three‑month suspension only on this employee violates the principle of proportionality and is unlawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Justifiability of grounds for discipline
There is no dispute between the parties that the employee’s acts of demanding the chairman’s resignation and filing a petition with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, etc. constitute grounds for discipline in violation of the Association’s service regulations. The justifiability of the grounds for discipline is acknowledged.
B. Justifiability of disciplinary procedures
There is no dispute between the employee and the employer regarding the procedures for the suspension at issue. The justifiability of the disciplinary procedures is also acknowledged.
C. Justifiability of the level of discipline
There is no new evidence to support the view that the employee took the lead in the conduct, and, rather, considering that the drafting of the petition and related matters were carried out through division of work with the heads of institutions, that it is unclear who proposed the idea of requesting cooperation from the labor union and using its organization to disseminate the petition, that the video conference was naturally convened in a situation where heads of institutions with similar views had already formed a consensus, and that the employee’s conduct appears to have arisen not from pursuit of private gain or unlawful motives but from differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of the articles of association and distrust of the former chairman, imposing a three‑month suspension only on this employee violates the principle of proportionality and is unlawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Refusal of Regular Employment (Probationary Evaluation Below 60 Points)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (demand for chairman’s resignation · filing of petition), 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Refusal of Regular Employment (Probationary Evaluation Below 60 Points)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (demand for chairman’s resignation · filing of petition) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Demand for Chairman’s Resignation · Filing of Petition).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full (all claims upheld) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (demand for chairman’s resignation · filing of petition).”
Adjudicating body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae120 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.19 · Case result: All claims upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Justifiability of grounds for discipline
There is no dispute between the parties that the employee’s acts of demanding the chairman’s resignation and filing a petition with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, etc. constitute grounds for discipline in violation of the Association’s service regulations.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee of an association demanded the resignation of the former chairman and, in the course of filing a petition with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, received a disciplinary sanction of three months’ suspension on the ground of violating the service regulations. The employee regarded this as a severe disciplinary measure equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the legitimacy of both the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary procedures, but held that the level of discipline violated the principle of proportionality and was therefore unjust, and fully upheld the employee’s application.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Even where both the grounds for discipline, which constitute a violation of the service regulations, and the disciplinary procedures are legitimate, whether the imposition of a three‑month suspension only on a specific employee, in light of the circumstances surrounding the demand for the chairman’s resignation, the filing of the petition with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and the division of roles with colleagues, is so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to violate the principle of proportionality and thus constitute unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Contrary to the employer’s assertions, the panel found no new evidence to support the view that the employee took the lead in the conduct at issue. Rather, the drafting and delivery of the petition proceeded through collective discussions, including division of responsibilities with the heads of various institutions and use of the labor union’s organization. The demand for the chairman’s resignation and the filing of the petition also appeared to stem not from pursuit of private gain or unlawful motives, but from differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of the articles of association and distrust of the former chairman.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that imposing a severe sanction of three months’ suspension only on this employee exceeded the scope of discretion afforded to the disciplinary authority and was clearly unreasonable in light of social norms, thereby violating the principle of proportionality and constituting an unlawful act.
Although the grounds and procedures for the disciplinary dismissal in this case were lawful, the level of discipline was found to be excessive and thus unjust.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should specifically organize and present the motives and circumstances of their conduct, the degree of involvement of other members within the organization, and the connection with the labor union, in order to actively substantiate before the Labor Relations Commission that the level of discipline is excessive.
In particular, where a severe disciplinary measure comparable to unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal has been imposed, it is important, even if the grounds for discipline are acknowledged, to prepare the application for remedy with a focus on whether the sanction is “clearly harsh in light of social norms” and whether “only I have been singled out for disproportionately severe punishment.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where multiple employees are involved in a matter but a severe disciplinary sanction is imposed only on a specific individual, it is necessary to clearly secure reasonable grounds and evidence justifying the heavier sanction on that person.
In addition, when imposing discipline in sensitive matters such as demands for the chairman’s resignation or filing of petitions with external agencies, the employer should comprehensively review the motives and circumstances of the conduct, the structure of internal opinion conflicts, and the impact on labor‑management relations, and, in advance, check with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& whether the level of discipline falls within a range acceptable under social norms.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Justifiability of grounds for discipline
There is no dispute between the parties that the employee’s acts of demanding the chairman’s resignation and filing a petition with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, etc. constitute grounds for discipline in violation of the Association’s service regulations. The justifiability of the grounds for discipline is acknowledged.
B. Justifiability of disciplinary procedures
There is no dispute between the employee and the employer regarding the procedures for the suspension at issue. The justifiability of the disciplinary procedures is also acknowledged.
C. Justifiability of the level of discipline
There is no new evidence to support the view that the employee took the lead in the conduct, and, rather, considering that the drafting of the petition and related matters were carried out through division of work with the heads of institutions, that it is unclear who proposed the idea of requesting cooperation from the labor union and using its organization to disseminate the petition, that the video conference was naturally convened in a situation where heads of institutions with similar views had already formed a consensus, and that the employee’s conduct appears to have arisen not from pursuit of private gain or unlawful motives but from differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of the articles of association and distrust of the former chairman, imposing a three‑month suspension only on this employee violates the principle of proportionality and is unlawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Justifiability of grounds for discipline
There is no dispute between the parties that the employee’s acts of demanding the chairman’s resignation and filing a petition with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, etc. constitute grounds for discipline in violation of the Association’s service regulations. The justifiability of the grounds for discipline is acknowledged.
B. Justifiability of disciplinary procedures
There is no dispute between the employee and the employer regarding the procedures for the suspension at issue. The justifiability of the disciplinary procedures is also acknowledged.
C. Justifiability of the level of discipline
There is no new evidence to support the view that the employee took the lead in the conduct, and, rather, considering that the drafting of the petition and related matters were carried out through division of work with the heads of institutions, that it is unclear who proposed the idea of requesting cooperation from the labor union and using its organization to disseminate the petition, that the video conference was naturally convened in a situation where heads of institutions with similar views had already formed a consensus, and that the employee’s conduct appears to have arisen not from pursuit of private gain or unlawful motives but from differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of the articles of association and distrust of the former chairman, imposing a three‑month suspension only on this employee violates the principle of proportionality and is unlawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Refusal of Regular Employment (Probationary Evaluation Below 60 Points)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (demand for chairman’s resignation · filing of petition), 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Refusal of Regular Employment (Probationary Evaluation Below 60 Points)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (demand for chairman’s resignation · filing of petition) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Demand for Chairman’s Resignation · Filing of Petition).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
