Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Scope of Grounds for Disqualification (Same Law Firm)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 521)
- Date2026/07/05 04:06
- Read 28
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the issue of the “scope of grounds for disqualification (same law firm)” was raised and the first-instance decision was ultimately upheld.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2021Buhae803 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-05 · Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether the presiding commissioner in the first-instance proceedings fell under any grounds for disqualification, etc. Under Article 21(1)4-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, the term “relevant case” is limited to cases brought before a labor relations commission. Therefore, it is difficult to view the fact that the employer’s counsel in a separate court case and the presiding commissioner in the first-instance remedy proceedings before the labor relations commission belong to the same law firm, where the adjudicating body is different, as constituting a ground for disqualification under that provision.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the worker received a suspension from duty (disciplinary suspension) from the employer, the worker regarded this as an unfair dismissal, etc., and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy. Dissatisfied with the first-instance decision, the worker then filed for re‑examination with the Central Labor Relations Commission.
In the re‑examination proceedings, the worker argued that there were grounds for disqualification because the presiding commissioner in the first-instance proceedings and the employer’s counsel in a separate court case belonged to the same law firm, while at the same time disputing the substantive legitimacy of the suspension itself.
The Labor Relations Commission first examined whether there were any grounds for disqualification or challenge with respect to the presiding commissioner in the first-instance proceedings, and then, in parallel, reviewed whether the suspension constituted a disciplinary measure based on just cause under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are:
“(i) Whether it constitutes a ground for disqualification under the Labor Relations Commission Act that a member of the Labor Relations Commission and the employer’s representative in a separate court case belong to the same law firm, solely on that basis; and (ii) whether a suspension imposed on the grounds of acts of coercion and violence occurring in the course of collective bargaining is an excessively severe disciplinary measure amounting to an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that the “relevant case” referred to in Article 21(1)4-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act is limited to the very case brought before the Labor Relations Commission; that court cases and cases before the Labor Relations Commission are separate matters with different adjudicating bodies and procedures; and that the mere fact of belonging to the same law firm does not, from the standpoint of an ordinary person, constitute an objective circumstance sufficient to cast doubt on the fairness of deliberation and resolution.
Accordingly, it determined that it was difficult to regard the presiding commissioner in the first-instance proceedings as falling under any ground for disqualification as set forth in that provision.
With respect to the suspension, the Commission acknowledged that there were some circumstances warranting partial consideration, in that a significant portion of the grounds for discipline arose during the period of collective bargaining. However, it found that the acts in question involved coercion and violence, unjustifiably infringed the employer’s right to manage its facilities, and could be evaluated as unlawful union activities exceeding the bounds of legitimate trade union activity. In light of these factors, the Commission held that the suspension did not constitute an abuse of disciplinary authority.
Ultimately, the Commission found that the dismissal in this case could not be viewed as an unfair dismissal lacking just cause, and that the first-instance decision should be upheld.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that, for an application for disqualification or challenge of a member of the Labor Relations Commission to be upheld, mere conjecture or subjective distrust is insufficient; there must be objective circumstances that, in the eyes of an ordinary person, would cast doubt on the fairness of the proceedings.
It should also be noted that, even in the context of collective bargaining or industrial action, acts such as the exercise of coercion or violence, occupation of facilities, and other infringements of the employer’s right to manage its facilities are unlikely to be protected as legitimate union activities and may constitute grounds for serious disciplinary measures such as suspension or dismissal.
Even during trade union activities, it is important to exercise self‑control in emotionally charged situations and, through internal union guidelines and training, to manage in advance so that conduct arising in the course of bargaining does not exceed the bounds of lawful industrial action.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when imposing serious disciplinary measures such as suspension or dismissal, it is essential to clearly distinguish, both factually and legally, between conduct that constitutes legitimate trade union activity and conduct that constitutes unlawful union activity, such as infringement of the employer’s right to manage its facilities or acts of violence.
In particular, where the conduct occurred during a period of collective bargaining, the employer should specifically organize and document the context of union activity, the background and circumstances, the frequency or repetition of the conduct, and the extent of harm, so as to be able to substantiate the appropriateness of the level of discipline.
Furthermore, to prevent unnecessary disputes over disqualification or challenge of commission members in proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, it is advisable from the outset of the case to carefully review any potential conflicts of interest relating to the appointment of representatives and the composition of the commission, and to pre‑emptively check for any factors that could give rise to allegations concerning the fairness of the proceedings.
(ⓒ Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the presiding commissioner in the first-instance proceedings fell under any grounds for disqualification, etc. As the term “relevant case” in Article 21(1)4-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act is limited to cases brought before a labor relations commission, it is difficult to regard the mere fact that the employer’s counsel in a separate court case and the presiding commissioner in the first-instance remedy proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, which have different adjudicating bodies, belong to the same law firm as constituting a ground for disqualification under that provision.
B. Whether the suspension was justified
Although there are some circumstances warranting partial consideration in that a significant portion of the grounds for discipline against the worker arose during the period of collective bargaining, the conduct involved coercion and violence, unjustifiably infringed the employer’s right to manage its facilities…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the presiding commissioner in the first-instance proceedings fell under any grounds for disqualification, etc. As the term “relevant case” in Article 21(1)4-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act is limited to cases brought before a labor relations commission, it is difficult to regard the mere fact that the employer’s counsel in a separate court case and the presiding commissioner in the first-instance remedy proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, which have different adjudicating bodies, belong to the same law firm as constituting a ground for disqualification under that provision.
B. Whether the suspension was justified
Although there are some circumstances warranting partial consideration in that a significant portion of the grounds for discipline against the worker arose during the period of collective bargaining, the conduct involved coercion and violence, unjustifiably infringed the employer’s right to manage its facilities… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal Rejected (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissal
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Scope of grounds for disqualification (same law firm), Disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary measures, suspension, etc.), Others, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Acceptance of Withdrawal of Resignation (Tearing Up a Resignation Letter)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the “Scope of Grounds for Disqualification (Same Law Firm)” can be found in the “Scope of Grounds for Disqualification (Same Law Firm) – Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the issue of the “scope of grounds for disqualification (same law firm)” was raised and the first-instance decision was ultimately upheld.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2021Buhae803 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-05 · Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether the presiding commissioner in the first-instance proceedings fell under any grounds for disqualification, etc. Under Article 21(1)4-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, the term “relevant case” is limited to cases brought before a labor relations commission. Therefore, it is difficult to view the fact that the employer’s counsel in a separate court case and the presiding commissioner in the first-instance remedy proceedings before the labor relations commission belong to the same law firm, where the adjudicating body is different, as constituting a ground for disqualification under that provision.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the worker received a suspension from duty (disciplinary suspension) from the employer, the worker regarded this as an unfair dismissal, etc., and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy. Dissatisfied with the first-instance decision, the worker then filed for re‑examination with the Central Labor Relations Commission.
In the re‑examination proceedings, the worker argued that there were grounds for disqualification because the presiding commissioner in the first-instance proceedings and the employer’s counsel in a separate court case belonged to the same law firm, while at the same time disputing the substantive legitimacy of the suspension itself.
The Labor Relations Commission first examined whether there were any grounds for disqualification or challenge with respect to the presiding commissioner in the first-instance proceedings, and then, in parallel, reviewed whether the suspension constituted a disciplinary measure based on just cause under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are:
“(i) Whether it constitutes a ground for disqualification under the Labor Relations Commission Act that a member of the Labor Relations Commission and the employer’s representative in a separate court case belong to the same law firm, solely on that basis; and (ii) whether a suspension imposed on the grounds of acts of coercion and violence occurring in the course of collective bargaining is an excessively severe disciplinary measure amounting to an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that the “relevant case” referred to in Article 21(1)4-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act is limited to the very case brought before the Labor Relations Commission; that court cases and cases before the Labor Relations Commission are separate matters with different adjudicating bodies and procedures; and that the mere fact of belonging to the same law firm does not, from the standpoint of an ordinary person, constitute an objective circumstance sufficient to cast doubt on the fairness of deliberation and resolution.
Accordingly, it determined that it was difficult to regard the presiding commissioner in the first-instance proceedings as falling under any ground for disqualification as set forth in that provision.
With respect to the suspension, the Commission acknowledged that there were some circumstances warranting partial consideration, in that a significant portion of the grounds for discipline arose during the period of collective bargaining. However, it found that the acts in question involved coercion and violence, unjustifiably infringed the employer’s right to manage its facilities, and could be evaluated as unlawful union activities exceeding the bounds of legitimate trade union activity. In light of these factors, the Commission held that the suspension did not constitute an abuse of disciplinary authority.
Ultimately, the Commission found that the dismissal in this case could not be viewed as an unfair dismissal lacking just cause, and that the first-instance decision should be upheld.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that, for an application for disqualification or challenge of a member of the Labor Relations Commission to be upheld, mere conjecture or subjective distrust is insufficient; there must be objective circumstances that, in the eyes of an ordinary person, would cast doubt on the fairness of the proceedings.
It should also be noted that, even in the context of collective bargaining or industrial action, acts such as the exercise of coercion or violence, occupation of facilities, and other infringements of the employer’s right to manage its facilities are unlikely to be protected as legitimate union activities and may constitute grounds for serious disciplinary measures such as suspension or dismissal.
Even during trade union activities, it is important to exercise self‑control in emotionally charged situations and, through internal union guidelines and training, to manage in advance so that conduct arising in the course of bargaining does not exceed the bounds of lawful industrial action.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when imposing serious disciplinary measures such as suspension or dismissal, it is essential to clearly distinguish, both factually and legally, between conduct that constitutes legitimate trade union activity and conduct that constitutes unlawful union activity, such as infringement of the employer’s right to manage its facilities or acts of violence.
In particular, where the conduct occurred during a period of collective bargaining, the employer should specifically organize and document the context of union activity, the background and circumstances, the frequency or repetition of the conduct, and the extent of harm, so as to be able to substantiate the appropriateness of the level of discipline.
Furthermore, to prevent unnecessary disputes over disqualification or challenge of commission members in proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, it is advisable from the outset of the case to carefully review any potential conflicts of interest relating to the appointment of representatives and the composition of the commission, and to pre‑emptively check for any factors that could give rise to allegations concerning the fairness of the proceedings.
(ⓒ Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the presiding commissioner in the first-instance proceedings fell under any grounds for disqualification, etc. As the term “relevant case” in Article 21(1)4-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act is limited to cases brought before a labor relations commission, it is difficult to regard the mere fact that the employer’s counsel in a separate court case and the presiding commissioner in the first-instance remedy proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, which have different adjudicating bodies, belong to the same law firm as constituting a ground for disqualification under that provision.
B. Whether the suspension was justified
Although there are some circumstances warranting partial consideration in that a significant portion of the grounds for discipline against the worker arose during the period of collective bargaining, the conduct involved coercion and violence, unjustifiably infringed the employer’s right to manage its facilities…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the presiding commissioner in the first-instance proceedings fell under any grounds for disqualification, etc. As the term “relevant case” in Article 21(1)4-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act is limited to cases brought before a labor relations commission, it is difficult to regard the mere fact that the employer’s counsel in a separate court case and the presiding commissioner in the first-instance remedy proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, which have different adjudicating bodies, belong to the same law firm as constituting a ground for disqualification under that provision.
B. Whether the suspension was justified
Although there are some circumstances warranting partial consideration in that a significant portion of the grounds for discipline against the worker arose during the period of collective bargaining, the conduct involved coercion and violence, unjustifiably infringed the employer’s right to manage its facilities… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal Rejected (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissal
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Scope of grounds for disqualification (same law firm), Disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary measures, suspension, etc.), Others, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Acceptance of Withdrawal of Resignation (Tearing Up a Resignation Letter)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the “Scope of Grounds for Disqualification (Same Law Firm)” can be found in the “Scope of Grounds for Disqualification (Same Law Firm) – Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
