Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Disciplinary Proportionality and Procedural Defects (221 Instances of Tardiness)” (Unfair Dismissal 538)
- Date2026/07/13 04:05
- Read 15
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “disciplinary proportionality and procedural defects (221 instances of tardiness).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee ultimately prevailed (full recognition) on the issue of “disciplinary proportionality and procedural defects (221 instances of tardiness).”
Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1029 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-01 · Case Result: Full Recognition
Summary of Key Issues: … The employee’s 221 instances of tardiness in 2025 and average daily working time of 6 hours 25 minutes and 49 seconds constituted a violation of Article 29(3) of the Rules of Employment and were recognized as grounds for discipline.
(b) Appropriateness of the level of discipline: In light of the absence of any confirmed prior corrective guidance or warnings regarding the employee’s attendance and work attitude, the imposition of the most severe disciplinary measure, dismissal, exceeded the bounds of social reasonableness relative to the recognized grounds for discipline and was therefore excessively harsh.
(c) Compliance with disciplinary procedures: …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was dismissed by the employer for repeated tardiness and insufficient working hours, and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the violation of the Rules of Employment itself, but focused its unfair dismissal analysis on the appropriateness of the level of discipline and compliance with disciplinary procedures. Through this decision, Labor Law Firm Law& seeks to整理 the legal principles governing unfair dismissal and disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are whether, in circumstances where serious attendance misconduct is established—namely 221 instances of tardiness in a year and insufficient working hours—the employer’s immediate resort to dismissal without separate corrective guidance or warnings is justifiable in terms of the level of discipline, and whether a dismissal carried out without following the disciplinary committee, opportunity to explain, and reconsideration procedures stipulated in the Rules of Employment can be regarded as having complied with lawful disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employee’s 221 instances of tardiness in 2025 and average daily working time of 6 hours 25 minutes and 49 seconds violated the attendance obligations under the Rules of Employment and therefore constituted grounds for discipline. Nevertheless, it also found that there was no evidence that the employer had provided prior corrective guidance, warnings, or stepwise disciplinary measures regarding the employee’s attendance and work attitude; that the Rules of Employment provided for the establishment, deliberation, and resolution of a disciplinary committee, the granting of an opportunity for the disciplined employee to explain, and the possibility of filing for reconsideration, yet none of these procedures had been followed; and that the dismissal notice did not specify the concrete grounds for discipline.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair, on the grounds that selecting dismissal—the most severe form of discipline—was disproportionate relative to the established misconduct and exceeded the range of social reasonableness, and that the employer had seriously violated the procedural rules governing discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to clearly recognize that attendance issues such as tardiness, early departure, and insufficient working hours can constitute violations of the Rules of Employment and grounds for discipline. However, the actual lawfulness of a dismissal depends not only on the degree of the violation, but also on whether the company has taken stepwise measures in advance, such as verbal or written warnings, cautions, pay cuts, or suspensions, and whether it has complied with the prescribed procedures, including convening a disciplinary committee and granting an opportunity to explain. Accordingly, if you have been dismissed without such procedures, you should actively consider filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where an employee’s poor attendance continues over a long period and occurs repeatedly, it is important, for purposes of securing the lawfulness of a dismissal, not to proceed directly to dismissal, but to implement stepwise warnings and corrective guidance while recording specific facts, and, where necessary, to impose intermediate-level disciplinary measures such as suspension or pay reduction. In addition, where the Rules of Employment or a collective agreement provide for procedures such as a disciplinary committee, an opportunity to explain, and a reconsideration process, the same procedures must be observed not only for disciplinary dismissals but also for any termination of employment that in substance has a disciplinary character. The dismissal notice should clearly state the specific grounds for discipline and the applicable provisions.
In this type of unfair dismissal case, it is advisable to seek assistance from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to review in advance the legal principles concerning the appropriateness of the level of discipline and compliance with disciplinary procedures, and to systematically organize the relevant evidence. This is key to both preventing and responding to disputes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
… The employee’s 221 instances of tardiness in 2025 and average daily working time of 6 hours 25 minutes and 49 seconds were found to violate Article 29(3) of the Rules of Employment and were recognized as grounds for discipline.
(b) Appropriateness of the level of discipline: In light of the absence of any confirmed prior corrective guidance or warnings regarding the employee’s attendance and work attitude, the imposition of the most severe disciplinary measure, dismissal, exceeded the bounds of social reasonableness relative to the recognized grounds for discipline and was therefore excessively harsh.
(c) Compliance with disciplinary procedures: Although the Rules of Employment provided for the establishment of a disciplinary committee to deliberate and resolve disciplinary matters, the granting of an opportunity for the disciplined employee to explain, and the possibility of filing for reconsideration, these procedures were not followed, and the notice of termination of the employment contract did not specify the concrete grounds for discipline …
3. Summary of Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… The employee’s 221 instances of tardiness in 2025 and average daily working time of 6 hours 25 minutes and 49 seconds were found to violate Article 29(3) of the Rules of Employment and were recognized as grounds for discipline.
(b) Appropriateness of the level of discipline: In light of the absence of any confirmed prior corrective guidance or warnings regarding the employee’s attendance and work attitude, the imposition of the most severe disciplinary measure, dismissal, exceeded the bounds of social reasonableness relative to the recognized grounds for discipline and was therefore excessively harsh.
(c) Compliance with disciplinary procedures: Although the Rules of Employment provided for the establishment of a disciplinary committee to deliberate and resolve disciplinary matters, the granting of an opportunity for the disciplined employee to explain, and the possibility of filing for reconsideration, these procedures were not followed, and the notice of termination of the employment contract did not specify the concrete grounds for discipline … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: - Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary proportionality and procedural defects (221 instances of tardiness), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (3-Minute Tardiness and Promotion Restriction)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “Disciplinary Proportionality and Procedural Defects (221 Instances of Tardiness)” can be viewed together in the “Disciplinary Proportionality and Procedural Defects (221 Instances of Tardiness) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee ultimately prevailed (full recognition) on the issue of “disciplinary proportionality and procedural defects (221 instances of tardiness).”
Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1029 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-01 · Case Result: Full Recognition
Summary of Key Issues: … The employee’s 221 instances of tardiness in 2025 and average daily working time of 6 hours 25 minutes and 49 seconds constituted a violation of Article 29(3) of the Rules of Employment and were recognized as grounds for discipline.
(b) Appropriateness of the level of discipline: In light of the absence of any confirmed prior corrective guidance or warnings regarding the employee’s attendance and work attitude, the imposition of the most severe disciplinary measure, dismissal, exceeded the bounds of social reasonableness relative to the recognized grounds for discipline and was therefore excessively harsh.
(c) Compliance with disciplinary procedures: …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was dismissed by the employer for repeated tardiness and insufficient working hours, and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the violation of the Rules of Employment itself, but focused its unfair dismissal analysis on the appropriateness of the level of discipline and compliance with disciplinary procedures. Through this decision, Labor Law Firm Law& seeks to整理 the legal principles governing unfair dismissal and disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are whether, in circumstances where serious attendance misconduct is established—namely 221 instances of tardiness in a year and insufficient working hours—the employer’s immediate resort to dismissal without separate corrective guidance or warnings is justifiable in terms of the level of discipline, and whether a dismissal carried out without following the disciplinary committee, opportunity to explain, and reconsideration procedures stipulated in the Rules of Employment can be regarded as having complied with lawful disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employee’s 221 instances of tardiness in 2025 and average daily working time of 6 hours 25 minutes and 49 seconds violated the attendance obligations under the Rules of Employment and therefore constituted grounds for discipline. Nevertheless, it also found that there was no evidence that the employer had provided prior corrective guidance, warnings, or stepwise disciplinary measures regarding the employee’s attendance and work attitude; that the Rules of Employment provided for the establishment, deliberation, and resolution of a disciplinary committee, the granting of an opportunity for the disciplined employee to explain, and the possibility of filing for reconsideration, yet none of these procedures had been followed; and that the dismissal notice did not specify the concrete grounds for discipline.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair, on the grounds that selecting dismissal—the most severe form of discipline—was disproportionate relative to the established misconduct and exceeded the range of social reasonableness, and that the employer had seriously violated the procedural rules governing discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to clearly recognize that attendance issues such as tardiness, early departure, and insufficient working hours can constitute violations of the Rules of Employment and grounds for discipline. However, the actual lawfulness of a dismissal depends not only on the degree of the violation, but also on whether the company has taken stepwise measures in advance, such as verbal or written warnings, cautions, pay cuts, or suspensions, and whether it has complied with the prescribed procedures, including convening a disciplinary committee and granting an opportunity to explain. Accordingly, if you have been dismissed without such procedures, you should actively consider filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where an employee’s poor attendance continues over a long period and occurs repeatedly, it is important, for purposes of securing the lawfulness of a dismissal, not to proceed directly to dismissal, but to implement stepwise warnings and corrective guidance while recording specific facts, and, where necessary, to impose intermediate-level disciplinary measures such as suspension or pay reduction. In addition, where the Rules of Employment or a collective agreement provide for procedures such as a disciplinary committee, an opportunity to explain, and a reconsideration process, the same procedures must be observed not only for disciplinary dismissals but also for any termination of employment that in substance has a disciplinary character. The dismissal notice should clearly state the specific grounds for discipline and the applicable provisions.
In this type of unfair dismissal case, it is advisable to seek assistance from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to review in advance the legal principles concerning the appropriateness of the level of discipline and compliance with disciplinary procedures, and to systematically organize the relevant evidence. This is key to both preventing and responding to disputes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
… The employee’s 221 instances of tardiness in 2025 and average daily working time of 6 hours 25 minutes and 49 seconds were found to violate Article 29(3) of the Rules of Employment and were recognized as grounds for discipline.
(b) Appropriateness of the level of discipline: In light of the absence of any confirmed prior corrective guidance or warnings regarding the employee’s attendance and work attitude, the imposition of the most severe disciplinary measure, dismissal, exceeded the bounds of social reasonableness relative to the recognized grounds for discipline and was therefore excessively harsh.
(c) Compliance with disciplinary procedures: Although the Rules of Employment provided for the establishment of a disciplinary committee to deliberate and resolve disciplinary matters, the granting of an opportunity for the disciplined employee to explain, and the possibility of filing for reconsideration, these procedures were not followed, and the notice of termination of the employment contract did not specify the concrete grounds for discipline …
3. Summary of Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… The employee’s 221 instances of tardiness in 2025 and average daily working time of 6 hours 25 minutes and 49 seconds were found to violate Article 29(3) of the Rules of Employment and were recognized as grounds for discipline.
(b) Appropriateness of the level of discipline: In light of the absence of any confirmed prior corrective guidance or warnings regarding the employee’s attendance and work attitude, the imposition of the most severe disciplinary measure, dismissal, exceeded the bounds of social reasonableness relative to the recognized grounds for discipline and was therefore excessively harsh.
(c) Compliance with disciplinary procedures: Although the Rules of Employment provided for the establishment of a disciplinary committee to deliberate and resolve disciplinary matters, the granting of an opportunity for the disciplined employee to explain, and the possibility of filing for reconsideration, these procedures were not followed, and the notice of termination of the employment contract did not specify the concrete grounds for discipline … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: - Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary proportionality and procedural defects (221 instances of tardiness), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (3-Minute Tardiness and Promotion Restriction)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “Disciplinary Proportionality and Procedural Defects (221 Instances of Tardiness)” can be viewed together in the “Disciplinary Proportionality and Procedural Defects (221 Instances of Tardiness) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
