Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Disciplinary Sanction Level (Complaint over Dangerous Driving)” (Unfair Dismissal 526)
- Date2026/07/06 04:15
- Read 33
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary sanction level (complaint over dangerous driving).”
Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae179 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-02 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s dangerous driving endangered another driver and ultimately led to a complaint. This constitutes conduct damaging the company’s honor and reputation, violation of work-related orders or instructions, and violation of the work rules for drivers, and therefore falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 4(1) subparagraphs 3, 9, and 12 of the disciplinary regulations.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a driver employed by a transportation company engaged in dangerous driving that endangered another driver, and a complaint was subsequently filed. The company imposed a disciplinary sanction on this basis, and the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair discipline.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on (i) whether grounds for discipline existed, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. In the end, the Commission dismissed the employee’s application and ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the driver’s dangerous driving and the resulting complaint constitute grounds for discipline as damage to the company’s honor and reputation, violation of work-related instructions, and violation of the work rules for drivers, and, if so, whether the imposed sanction of Level 2 pay reduction is a disciplinary measure that has clearly lost its validity under social norms and thus constitutes an inappropriate disciplinary sanction level.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee’s dangerous driving actually endangered another driver and led to a complaint; that this conduct can be evaluated, under the rules of employment and disciplinary regulations, as damaging the company’s honor and reputation and as violating work-related orders and the work rules for drivers; and that the level of discipline imposed was not dismissal or suspension but only a Level 2 pay reduction.
On this basis, the panel held that, although this was not a dismissal, the Level 2 pay reduction imposed as a disciplinary sanction could not be regarded, in light of the degree of the employee’s misconduct, as having so clearly lost its validity under social norms as to constitute an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
With respect to the level of discipline, the Commission relied on the standards set forth in Supreme Court precedents, namely, that disciplinary measures fall within the discretion of the disciplinary authority, and only where such measures are clearly unreasonable under social norms can they be deemed unlawful as an abuse of discretion. Taking into comprehensive account the nature of the job as a driver for a transportation company, the content of the dangerous driving and the resulting complaint, and the impact on corporate order and trust in the company, the Commission concluded that a Level 2 pay reduction could not be viewed as a sanction that lost proportionality between the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary measure.
The Commission also found that the grounds for discipline fell under the reasons expressly stipulated in Article 4(1) subparagraph 3 (damage to the company’s honor and reputation), subparagraph 9 (violation of work-related orders and instructions), and subparagraph 12 (violation of the work rules for drivers) of the company’s disciplinary regulations, and thus that the existence of grounds for discipline and conformity with the regulations were established. In addition, noting that the basic disciplinary procedures, such as convening and notifying the disciplinary committee, were carried out in the name of the chair of the disciplinary committee, the Commission held that it was difficult to regard the discipline as null and void due to any serious procedural defect.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, in positions such as driving work that are directly linked to safety, dangerous driving, traffic accidents, and conduct that triggers complaints can immediately constitute grounds for discipline as damage to the company’s honor and reputation and as violations of work rules. In particular, where the level of discipline is relatively low, such as pay reduction or reprimand, it is practically difficult to have such measures overturned at the Labor Relations Commission unless they are clearly excessive under social norms.
Accordingly, when preparing applications for remedy for unfair dismissal or unfair discipline in similar cases, it is important to: (i) identify whether there is objective evidence with which to contest the misconduct itself (black box footage, CCTV, witness statements, etc.); (ii) examine what level of discipline the company has imposed in the past for the same type of violation (fairness and consistency); and (iii) specifically organize the extent of any actual damage, complaints, or disruption to corporate order that occurred before and after the discipline. It is also essential to carefully review whether there were any procedural defects, such as in convening the disciplinary committee, providing notice, and affording an opportunity to explain, and to prepare arguments from both substantive and procedural angles.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, for high‑risk positions such as drivers where safety accidents are more likely, it is necessary to clearly define violations of operating rules, safety rules, and work-related instructions as grounds for discipline, and to clearly link those provisions to the actual disciplinary measures imposed. When determining the level of discipline, it is advisable to comprehensively consider the nature and severity of the misconduct, whether any actual accident or complaint occurred, the employee’s prior disciplinary record, and consistency with other similar cases, and to set the level at one that is unlikely to be deemed excessive under social norms.
In addition, the composition and resolution procedures of the disciplinary committee, prior notice of the grounds for discipline and opportunity to explain, and written notice of the disciplinary outcome must all be carried out accurately in accordance with the rules of employment and collective agreements. As illustrated by this case before the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, where the grounds for discipline and the level of sanction are appropriate and the basic procedures are observed, the employer’s position can be substantially upheld at the Labor Relations Commission stage.
This decision is a useful example of how the Labor Relations Commission views the criteria for assessing the level of disciplinary sanctions in unfair dismissal/unfair discipline disputes and violations of safety obligations in driving work. To prepare for similar cases, it is advisable to consult in advance with specialists in unfair dismissal and disciplinary matters, such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to prepare in advance a strategy for organizing the facts and securing evidence in line with the relevant legal principles.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s dangerous driving endangered another driver and ultimately led to a complaint. This constitutes conduct damaging the company’s honor and reputation, violation of work-related orders or instructions, and violation of the work rules for drivers, and therefore falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 4(1) subparagraphs 3, 9, and 12 of the disciplinary regulations.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the degree of the employee’s misconduct, the disciplinary sanction of a Level 2 pay reduction cannot be regarded as having so clearly lost its validity under social norms as to constitute an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The result of the disciplinary resolution was notified in the name of the chair of the disciplinary committee, and …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s dangerous driving endangered another driver and ultimately led to a complaint. This constitutes conduct damaging the company’s honor and reputation, violation of work-related orders or instructions, and violation of the work rules for drivers, and therefore falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 4(1) subparagraphs 3, 9, and 12 of the disciplinary regulations.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the degree of the employee’s misconduct, the disciplinary sanction of a Level 2 pay reduction cannot be regarded as having so clearly lost its validity under social norms as to constitute an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The result of the disciplinary resolution was notified in the name of the chair of the disciplinary committee, and …
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
- “‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Disclosure and Ridicule of Grievance Report)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary sanction level (complaint over dangerous driving), violation of company policy · noncompliance with work orders, 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, “‘Retaliatory Personnel Measure (Failure to Promote after Industrial Accident Claim)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary sanction level (complaint over dangerous driving) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Sanction Level (Complaint over Dangerous Driving)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary sanction level (complaint over dangerous driving).”
Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae179 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-02 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s dangerous driving endangered another driver and ultimately led to a complaint. This constitutes conduct damaging the company’s honor and reputation, violation of work-related orders or instructions, and violation of the work rules for drivers, and therefore falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 4(1) subparagraphs 3, 9, and 12 of the disciplinary regulations.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a driver employed by a transportation company engaged in dangerous driving that endangered another driver, and a complaint was subsequently filed. The company imposed a disciplinary sanction on this basis, and the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair discipline.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on (i) whether grounds for discipline existed, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. In the end, the Commission dismissed the employee’s application and ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the driver’s dangerous driving and the resulting complaint constitute grounds for discipline as damage to the company’s honor and reputation, violation of work-related instructions, and violation of the work rules for drivers, and, if so, whether the imposed sanction of Level 2 pay reduction is a disciplinary measure that has clearly lost its validity under social norms and thus constitutes an inappropriate disciplinary sanction level.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee’s dangerous driving actually endangered another driver and led to a complaint; that this conduct can be evaluated, under the rules of employment and disciplinary regulations, as damaging the company’s honor and reputation and as violating work-related orders and the work rules for drivers; and that the level of discipline imposed was not dismissal or suspension but only a Level 2 pay reduction.
On this basis, the panel held that, although this was not a dismissal, the Level 2 pay reduction imposed as a disciplinary sanction could not be regarded, in light of the degree of the employee’s misconduct, as having so clearly lost its validity under social norms as to constitute an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
With respect to the level of discipline, the Commission relied on the standards set forth in Supreme Court precedents, namely, that disciplinary measures fall within the discretion of the disciplinary authority, and only where such measures are clearly unreasonable under social norms can they be deemed unlawful as an abuse of discretion. Taking into comprehensive account the nature of the job as a driver for a transportation company, the content of the dangerous driving and the resulting complaint, and the impact on corporate order and trust in the company, the Commission concluded that a Level 2 pay reduction could not be viewed as a sanction that lost proportionality between the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary measure.
The Commission also found that the grounds for discipline fell under the reasons expressly stipulated in Article 4(1) subparagraph 3 (damage to the company’s honor and reputation), subparagraph 9 (violation of work-related orders and instructions), and subparagraph 12 (violation of the work rules for drivers) of the company’s disciplinary regulations, and thus that the existence of grounds for discipline and conformity with the regulations were established. In addition, noting that the basic disciplinary procedures, such as convening and notifying the disciplinary committee, were carried out in the name of the chair of the disciplinary committee, the Commission held that it was difficult to regard the discipline as null and void due to any serious procedural defect.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, in positions such as driving work that are directly linked to safety, dangerous driving, traffic accidents, and conduct that triggers complaints can immediately constitute grounds for discipline as damage to the company’s honor and reputation and as violations of work rules. In particular, where the level of discipline is relatively low, such as pay reduction or reprimand, it is practically difficult to have such measures overturned at the Labor Relations Commission unless they are clearly excessive under social norms.
Accordingly, when preparing applications for remedy for unfair dismissal or unfair discipline in similar cases, it is important to: (i) identify whether there is objective evidence with which to contest the misconduct itself (black box footage, CCTV, witness statements, etc.); (ii) examine what level of discipline the company has imposed in the past for the same type of violation (fairness and consistency); and (iii) specifically organize the extent of any actual damage, complaints, or disruption to corporate order that occurred before and after the discipline. It is also essential to carefully review whether there were any procedural defects, such as in convening the disciplinary committee, providing notice, and affording an opportunity to explain, and to prepare arguments from both substantive and procedural angles.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, for high‑risk positions such as drivers where safety accidents are more likely, it is necessary to clearly define violations of operating rules, safety rules, and work-related instructions as grounds for discipline, and to clearly link those provisions to the actual disciplinary measures imposed. When determining the level of discipline, it is advisable to comprehensively consider the nature and severity of the misconduct, whether any actual accident or complaint occurred, the employee’s prior disciplinary record, and consistency with other similar cases, and to set the level at one that is unlikely to be deemed excessive under social norms.
In addition, the composition and resolution procedures of the disciplinary committee, prior notice of the grounds for discipline and opportunity to explain, and written notice of the disciplinary outcome must all be carried out accurately in accordance with the rules of employment and collective agreements. As illustrated by this case before the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, where the grounds for discipline and the level of sanction are appropriate and the basic procedures are observed, the employer’s position can be substantially upheld at the Labor Relations Commission stage.
This decision is a useful example of how the Labor Relations Commission views the criteria for assessing the level of disciplinary sanctions in unfair dismissal/unfair discipline disputes and violations of safety obligations in driving work. To prepare for similar cases, it is advisable to consult in advance with specialists in unfair dismissal and disciplinary matters, such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to prepare in advance a strategy for organizing the facts and securing evidence in line with the relevant legal principles.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s dangerous driving endangered another driver and ultimately led to a complaint. This constitutes conduct damaging the company’s honor and reputation, violation of work-related orders or instructions, and violation of the work rules for drivers, and therefore falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 4(1) subparagraphs 3, 9, and 12 of the disciplinary regulations.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the degree of the employee’s misconduct, the disciplinary sanction of a Level 2 pay reduction cannot be regarded as having so clearly lost its validity under social norms as to constitute an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The result of the disciplinary resolution was notified in the name of the chair of the disciplinary committee, and …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s dangerous driving endangered another driver and ultimately led to a complaint. This constitutes conduct damaging the company’s honor and reputation, violation of work-related orders or instructions, and violation of the work rules for drivers, and therefore falls under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 4(1) subparagraphs 3, 9, and 12 of the disciplinary regulations.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the degree of the employee’s misconduct, the disciplinary sanction of a Level 2 pay reduction cannot be regarded as having so clearly lost its validity under social norms as to constitute an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The result of the disciplinary resolution was notified in the name of the chair of the disciplinary committee, and …
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
- “‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Disclosure and Ridicule of Grievance Report)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary sanction level (complaint over dangerous driving), violation of company policy · noncompliance with work orders, 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, “‘Retaliatory Personnel Measure (Failure to Promote after Industrial Accident Claim)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary sanction level (complaint over dangerous driving) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Sanction Level (Complaint over Dangerous Driving)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
