Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Scuffle Grabbing Colleague by the Collar)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 516)
- Date2026/07/03 04:11
- Read 17
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (scuffle grabbing colleague by the collar).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee fully prevailed in an unfair dismissal dispute where the key issue was “excessive disciplinary measure (scuffle grabbing colleague by the collar).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해187 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-08 · Case Outcome: Fully Upheld (Employee’s Claim)
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee did in fact engage in a scuffle with a colleague, grabbing the colleague by the collar, and the company’s rules list “assault” as a ground for discipline. Accordingly, there were grounds for disciplining the employee.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission examined whether a disciplinary dismissal based on a scuffle with a colleague—specifically, grabbing the colleague by the collar—was justified. This case is closely connected to other assault and redundancy dismissal matters handled by Labor Law Firm Law&. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline and the validity of the procedure, but focused its analysis on whether the level of discipline (choice of dismissal) was excessively severe in light of social norms.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee, while at the workplace, engaged in a physical altercation with a colleague, grabbing the colleague by the collar. The company convened a disciplinary committee and decided on dismissal, on the grounds that this conduct constituted “assault” under its work rules. The employee, considering the dismissal to be an excessively harsh sanction, filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, and the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was whether, in circumstances where (i) an act of assault in the form of a scuffle with a colleague at the workplace did occur, and (ii) the disciplinary procedure was formally lawful, the choice of disciplinary dismissal as the level of sanction had clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms. In other words, even if the grounds and procedure for discipline are acknowledged, the core question is whether opting for dismissal is justified, and to what extent the Labor Relations Commission may review and control any abuse or excess in the employer’s discretion regarding the level of discipline.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that the employee had indeed engaged in a scuffle with a colleague, grabbing the colleague by the collar, and that “assault” was expressly stipulated as a ground for discipline in the company’s rules. It also noted that the employee had been given an opportunity to appear before the disciplinary committee and present explanations, and that the employer had sent a written notice of disciplinary action specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal. On this basis, the Commission recognized both the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure.
However, although the company’s rules list as a ground for dismissal “those who, through assault, etc., disturb public order and harm public morals,” the Commission placed weight on the fact that, based solely on the materials submitted by the employer, it was difficult to find that the employee’s misconduct had so seriously disrupted corporate order as to render continuation of the employment relationship impossible, or that the conduct was so serious and repeated as to justify dismissal under social norms.
In light of the Supreme Court’s criteria for assessing the level of disciplinary sanction (the legal principle that one must comprehensively consider such factors as the purpose and nature of the business, workplace conditions, the employee’s position and duties, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, its impact on corporate order, and the employee’s past work attitude), the Commission found that the materials submitted by the employer in this case were insufficient to support a finding that the incident rose to a level of seriousness beyond a simple scuffle involving grabbing by the collar.
The Commission therefore held that, even if the grounds and procedure for discipline were recognized, the dismissal in this case was unfair because the level of discipline had clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms and constituted an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it must be borne in mind that verbal abuse or physical violence in the workplace—especially physical confrontations with colleagues—can in itself constitute grounds for discipline under work rules. However, where dismissal has actually been imposed, it is necessary to consider filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, focusing on whether dismissal is excessively severe in light of: the specific degree of the conduct, its motive and circumstances, whether any harm has been remedied, any prior disciplinary record, and consistency with how similar cases have been handled within the company.
In addition, when given an opportunity to appear before a disciplinary committee and present explanations, it is important not to merely deny the allegations, but to submit concrete information regarding the course of events, the incidental or impulsive nature of the conduct, commitments to prevent recurrence, and efforts to reconcile with the colleague or remedy any harm. Such materials can become important evidence later when the level of discipline is assessed.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, it may respond strictly to acts such as assault that disrupt corporate order. However, in order to justify disciplinary dismissal, the company must be able to prove with objective evidence that the incident went beyond a one-off altercation and that corporate order was seriously disrupted. In particular, the company should comprehensively review not only the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the procedure, but also consistency with other similar cases, whether the harm has been remedied, and the employee’s length of service and past work attitude, and carefully compare whether less severe sanctions such as pay reduction or suspension could achieve the intended purpose.
The company should also clearly document procedural requirements such as convening the disciplinary committee, prior notice, providing an opportunity to explain, specifying the grounds for discipline in detail, and preparing a written notice of disciplinary action. It is highly advisable to record, in minutes or resolutions, the factual findings and evaluative factors underlying the chosen level of discipline, as this will greatly assist in defending the legitimacy of the disciplinary action in subsequent proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee did in fact engage in a scuffle with a colleague, grabbing the colleague by the collar, and the company’s rules list “assault” as a ground for discipline. Accordingly, there were grounds for disciplining the employee.
B. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
The employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and was given an opportunity to present explanations, and the employer sent the employee a written notice of disciplinary action specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal. Therefore, no procedural defects were identified in the disciplinary process.
C. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Although the company’s rules list as a ground for dismissal “those who, through assault, etc., disturb public order and harm public morals,” based solely on the materials submitted by the employer, it is difficult to find that the employee’s misconduct…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee did in fact engage in a scuffle with a colleague, seizing the colleague by the collar, and the company’s rules list “assault” as a ground for discipline. Accordingly, there were grounds for disciplining the employee.
B. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
The employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and was given an opportunity to present explanations, and the employer sent the employee a written notice of disciplinary action specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal. Therefore, no procedural defects were identified in the disciplinary process.
C. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Although the company’s rules list as a ground for dismissal “those who, through assault, etc., disturb public order and harm public morals,” based solely on the materials submitted by the employer, it is difficult to find that the employee’s misconduct… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Phone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (scuffle grabbing colleague by the collar), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policies · failure to follow 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Business Necessity for Transfer (Allocation of Personnel by Union)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (scuffle grabbing colleague by the collar) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Scuffle Grabbing Colleague by the Collar).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee fully prevailed in an unfair dismissal dispute where the key issue was “excessive disciplinary measure (scuffle grabbing colleague by the collar).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해187 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-08 · Case Outcome: Fully Upheld (Employee’s Claim)
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee did in fact engage in a scuffle with a colleague, grabbing the colleague by the collar, and the company’s rules list “assault” as a ground for discipline. Accordingly, there were grounds for disciplining the employee.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission examined whether a disciplinary dismissal based on a scuffle with a colleague—specifically, grabbing the colleague by the collar—was justified. This case is closely connected to other assault and redundancy dismissal matters handled by Labor Law Firm Law&. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline and the validity of the procedure, but focused its analysis on whether the level of discipline (choice of dismissal) was excessively severe in light of social norms.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee, while at the workplace, engaged in a physical altercation with a colleague, grabbing the colleague by the collar. The company convened a disciplinary committee and decided on dismissal, on the grounds that this conduct constituted “assault” under its work rules. The employee, considering the dismissal to be an excessively harsh sanction, filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, and the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was whether, in circumstances where (i) an act of assault in the form of a scuffle with a colleague at the workplace did occur, and (ii) the disciplinary procedure was formally lawful, the choice of disciplinary dismissal as the level of sanction had clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms. In other words, even if the grounds and procedure for discipline are acknowledged, the core question is whether opting for dismissal is justified, and to what extent the Labor Relations Commission may review and control any abuse or excess in the employer’s discretion regarding the level of discipline.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that the employee had indeed engaged in a scuffle with a colleague, grabbing the colleague by the collar, and that “assault” was expressly stipulated as a ground for discipline in the company’s rules. It also noted that the employee had been given an opportunity to appear before the disciplinary committee and present explanations, and that the employer had sent a written notice of disciplinary action specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal. On this basis, the Commission recognized both the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure.
However, although the company’s rules list as a ground for dismissal “those who, through assault, etc., disturb public order and harm public morals,” the Commission placed weight on the fact that, based solely on the materials submitted by the employer, it was difficult to find that the employee’s misconduct had so seriously disrupted corporate order as to render continuation of the employment relationship impossible, or that the conduct was so serious and repeated as to justify dismissal under social norms.
In light of the Supreme Court’s criteria for assessing the level of disciplinary sanction (the legal principle that one must comprehensively consider such factors as the purpose and nature of the business, workplace conditions, the employee’s position and duties, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, its impact on corporate order, and the employee’s past work attitude), the Commission found that the materials submitted by the employer in this case were insufficient to support a finding that the incident rose to a level of seriousness beyond a simple scuffle involving grabbing by the collar.
The Commission therefore held that, even if the grounds and procedure for discipline were recognized, the dismissal in this case was unfair because the level of discipline had clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms and constituted an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it must be borne in mind that verbal abuse or physical violence in the workplace—especially physical confrontations with colleagues—can in itself constitute grounds for discipline under work rules. However, where dismissal has actually been imposed, it is necessary to consider filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, focusing on whether dismissal is excessively severe in light of: the specific degree of the conduct, its motive and circumstances, whether any harm has been remedied, any prior disciplinary record, and consistency with how similar cases have been handled within the company.
In addition, when given an opportunity to appear before a disciplinary committee and present explanations, it is important not to merely deny the allegations, but to submit concrete information regarding the course of events, the incidental or impulsive nature of the conduct, commitments to prevent recurrence, and efforts to reconcile with the colleague or remedy any harm. Such materials can become important evidence later when the level of discipline is assessed.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, it may respond strictly to acts such as assault that disrupt corporate order. However, in order to justify disciplinary dismissal, the company must be able to prove with objective evidence that the incident went beyond a one-off altercation and that corporate order was seriously disrupted. In particular, the company should comprehensively review not only the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the procedure, but also consistency with other similar cases, whether the harm has been remedied, and the employee’s length of service and past work attitude, and carefully compare whether less severe sanctions such as pay reduction or suspension could achieve the intended purpose.
The company should also clearly document procedural requirements such as convening the disciplinary committee, prior notice, providing an opportunity to explain, specifying the grounds for discipline in detail, and preparing a written notice of disciplinary action. It is highly advisable to record, in minutes or resolutions, the factual findings and evaluative factors underlying the chosen level of discipline, as this will greatly assist in defending the legitimacy of the disciplinary action in subsequent proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee did in fact engage in a scuffle with a colleague, grabbing the colleague by the collar, and the company’s rules list “assault” as a ground for discipline. Accordingly, there were grounds for disciplining the employee.
B. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
The employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and was given an opportunity to present explanations, and the employer sent the employee a written notice of disciplinary action specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal. Therefore, no procedural defects were identified in the disciplinary process.
C. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Although the company’s rules list as a ground for dismissal “those who, through assault, etc., disturb public order and harm public morals,” based solely on the materials submitted by the employer, it is difficult to find that the employee’s misconduct…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee did in fact engage in a scuffle with a colleague, seizing the colleague by the collar, and the company’s rules list “assault” as a ground for discipline. Accordingly, there were grounds for disciplining the employee.
B. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
The employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and was given an opportunity to present explanations, and the employer sent the employee a written notice of disciplinary action specifying the grounds and effective date of dismissal. Therefore, no procedural defects were identified in the disciplinary process.
C. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Although the company’s rules list as a ground for dismissal “those who, through assault, etc., disturb public order and harm public morals,” based solely on the materials submitted by the employer, it is difficult to find that the employee’s misconduct… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Phone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (scuffle grabbing colleague by the collar), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policies · failure to follow 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Business Necessity for Transfer (Allocation of Personnel by Union)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (scuffle grabbing colleague by the collar) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Scuffle Grabbing Colleague by the Collar).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
