Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Three-Minute Tardiness and Promotion Restriction)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 537)
- Date2026/07/12 04:16
- Read 25
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (three-minute tardiness and promotion restriction).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9562 ○○○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-01 · Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee received a “caution” from the company for being three minutes late to work. As a result, the employee became subject to a three-year disadvantage in promotion, and therefore filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy on the ground that this constituted an unfair dismissal and other disadvantageous personnel action.
The Central Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether this “caution” constitutes a disadvantageous disposition falling under unfair dismissal, etc. under the Labor Standards Act, and whether the level of sanction (disciplinary severity) was appropriate.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“When a ‘caution’ imposed for three minutes of tardiness entails a substantive disadvantage in the form of promotion restrictions, does it fall under ‘other disciplinary action’ under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act and thereby become subject to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission? Furthermore, is the level of such sanction proportionate and justified from the standpoint of disciplinary severity?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that: (i) the caution resulted in a promotion-related disadvantage, namely exclusion from promotion for three years; (ii) where personnel disadvantages such as restrictions on promotion or salary increases remain in effect, a legal interest in seeking remedy is recognized, just as in cases of suspension from duty or placement on standby; and (iii) the term “other disciplinary action” in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act includes disadvantageous dispositions of a punitive or sanctioning nature, regardless of their formal designation.
Accordingly, despite the fact that the “caution” was formally an HR measure not processed through a disciplinary committee, the Commission held that, in substance, it produced a punitive effect in the form of promotion restrictions and therefore constituted a disposition subject to an application for remedy.
In addition, the Commission found that imposing a three-year promotion restriction for a minor rule violation—being three minutes late for work—was excessively severe, as it significantly disrupted the balance between the gravity of the misconduct and the level of sanction. While this case did not involve a dismissal per se, the Commission held that the promotion restriction resulting from the “caution” was unjust.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if a measure is labeled as a “caution,” “warning,” “guidance,” or similar, if it results in specific and ongoing disadvantages such as restrictions on promotion or salary increases, or wage reductions, it may be challenged by filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. with the Labor Relations Commission.
In particular, employees should carefully examine the substantive nature of the sanction—such as the length of the promotion restriction period and the degree of wage-related disadvantage—and respond promptly within the three-month exclusion period from the date of the disposition.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even relatively minor HR measures such as “cautions” or “warnings” may be evaluated as “other disciplinary action” under the Labor Standards Act if they are accompanied by substantive sanctions such as restrictions on promotion or salary increases, or significant score deductions in performance evaluations.
As with redundancy dismissals or disciplinary dismissals, employers should ensure proportionality between the degree of misconduct and the level of sanction, as well as consistency with similar cases, so that the disciplinary severity is not deemed excessive. To this end, employers are advised to review and refine their HR and disciplinary regulations.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the Caution Is Subject to an Application for Remedy
Because the caution resulted in a disadvantage in terms of promotion, it falls within the scope of dispositions subject to an application for remedy.
(b) Whether the Caution Was Justified
1) Whether the “Caution” Is an HR Disposition That Must Go Through a Disciplinary Committee
A caution issued to an employee falls under a case where the employer views the employee’s misconduct as “not rising to the level of disciplinary action” and therefore takes an HR measure without going through a disciplinary committee procedure. Accordingly, there appears to be no violation of the relevant rules in this respect.
2) Whether the Disadvantage Resulting from the “Caution” Is Excessive
Imposing a three-year promotion disadvantage solely because the employee was three minutes late for work constitutes a disadvantage that is excessive relative to the degree of the rule violation, and therefore the disciplinary severity…
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the Caution Is Subject to an Application for Remedy
Because the caution resulted in a disadvantage in terms of promotion, it falls within the scope of dispositions subject to an application for remedy.
(b) Whether the Caution Was Justified
1) Whether the “Caution” Is an HR Disposition That Must Go Through a Disciplinary Committee
A caution issued to an employee falls under a case where the employer views the employee’s misconduct as “not rising to the level of disciplinary action” and therefore takes an HR measure without going through a disciplinary committee procedure. Accordingly, there appears to be no violation of the relevant rules in this respect.
2) Whether the Disadvantage Resulting from the “Caution” Is Excessive
Imposing a three-year promotion disadvantage solely because the employee was three minutes late for work constitutes a disadvantage that is excessive relative to the degree of the rule violation, and therefore the disciplinary severity… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Reinstatement Following Compliance with Labor Commission Remedy Order)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (three-minute tardiness and promotion restriction), performance evaluation · poor performance, 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, “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Reinstatement Following Compliance with Labor Commission Remedy Order)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (three-minute tardiness and promotion restriction) on the “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Three-Minute Tardiness and Promotion Restriction) Related Decisions List” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (three-minute tardiness and promotion restriction).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9562 ○○○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-01 · Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee received a “caution” from the company for being three minutes late to work. As a result, the employee became subject to a three-year disadvantage in promotion, and therefore filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy on the ground that this constituted an unfair dismissal and other disadvantageous personnel action.
The Central Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether this “caution” constitutes a disadvantageous disposition falling under unfair dismissal, etc. under the Labor Standards Act, and whether the level of sanction (disciplinary severity) was appropriate.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“When a ‘caution’ imposed for three minutes of tardiness entails a substantive disadvantage in the form of promotion restrictions, does it fall under ‘other disciplinary action’ under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act and thereby become subject to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission? Furthermore, is the level of such sanction proportionate and justified from the standpoint of disciplinary severity?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that: (i) the caution resulted in a promotion-related disadvantage, namely exclusion from promotion for three years; (ii) where personnel disadvantages such as restrictions on promotion or salary increases remain in effect, a legal interest in seeking remedy is recognized, just as in cases of suspension from duty or placement on standby; and (iii) the term “other disciplinary action” in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act includes disadvantageous dispositions of a punitive or sanctioning nature, regardless of their formal designation.
Accordingly, despite the fact that the “caution” was formally an HR measure not processed through a disciplinary committee, the Commission held that, in substance, it produced a punitive effect in the form of promotion restrictions and therefore constituted a disposition subject to an application for remedy.
In addition, the Commission found that imposing a three-year promotion restriction for a minor rule violation—being three minutes late for work—was excessively severe, as it significantly disrupted the balance between the gravity of the misconduct and the level of sanction. While this case did not involve a dismissal per se, the Commission held that the promotion restriction resulting from the “caution” was unjust.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if a measure is labeled as a “caution,” “warning,” “guidance,” or similar, if it results in specific and ongoing disadvantages such as restrictions on promotion or salary increases, or wage reductions, it may be challenged by filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. with the Labor Relations Commission.
In particular, employees should carefully examine the substantive nature of the sanction—such as the length of the promotion restriction period and the degree of wage-related disadvantage—and respond promptly within the three-month exclusion period from the date of the disposition.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even relatively minor HR measures such as “cautions” or “warnings” may be evaluated as “other disciplinary action” under the Labor Standards Act if they are accompanied by substantive sanctions such as restrictions on promotion or salary increases, or significant score deductions in performance evaluations.
As with redundancy dismissals or disciplinary dismissals, employers should ensure proportionality between the degree of misconduct and the level of sanction, as well as consistency with similar cases, so that the disciplinary severity is not deemed excessive. To this end, employers are advised to review and refine their HR and disciplinary regulations.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the Caution Is Subject to an Application for Remedy
Because the caution resulted in a disadvantage in terms of promotion, it falls within the scope of dispositions subject to an application for remedy.
(b) Whether the Caution Was Justified
1) Whether the “Caution” Is an HR Disposition That Must Go Through a Disciplinary Committee
A caution issued to an employee falls under a case where the employer views the employee’s misconduct as “not rising to the level of disciplinary action” and therefore takes an HR measure without going through a disciplinary committee procedure. Accordingly, there appears to be no violation of the relevant rules in this respect.
2) Whether the Disadvantage Resulting from the “Caution” Is Excessive
Imposing a three-year promotion disadvantage solely because the employee was three minutes late for work constitutes a disadvantage that is excessive relative to the degree of the rule violation, and therefore the disciplinary severity…
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the Caution Is Subject to an Application for Remedy
Because the caution resulted in a disadvantage in terms of promotion, it falls within the scope of dispositions subject to an application for remedy.
(b) Whether the Caution Was Justified
1) Whether the “Caution” Is an HR Disposition That Must Go Through a Disciplinary Committee
A caution issued to an employee falls under a case where the employer views the employee’s misconduct as “not rising to the level of disciplinary action” and therefore takes an HR measure without going through a disciplinary committee procedure. Accordingly, there appears to be no violation of the relevant rules in this respect.
2) Whether the Disadvantage Resulting from the “Caution” Is Excessive
Imposing a three-year promotion disadvantage solely because the employee was three minutes late for work constitutes a disadvantage that is excessive relative to the degree of the rule violation, and therefore the disciplinary severity… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Reinstatement Following Compliance with Labor Commission Remedy Order)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (three-minute tardiness and promotion restriction), performance evaluation · poor performance, 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, “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Reinstatement Following Compliance with Labor Commission Remedy Order)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (three-minute tardiness and promotion restriction) on the “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Three-Minute Tardiness and Promotion Restriction) Related Decisions List” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
