Corporate trends / Performance record
“Defects in Disciplinary Procedures (Resident Fatal Accident Event)” Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 558)
- Date2026/07/21 04:04
- Read 16
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “defects in disciplinary procedures (resident fatal accident event).”
Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2026부해981 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-27 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: … As thorough preparations were not made regarding matters such as designating a person in charge for the event schedule and proceedings, and allocating work among the staff members, the grounds for discipline were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: As the employee, in his capacity as the superior of the staff members who caused the resident’s death, could not be regarded as bearing light responsibility, and considering that the employees directly in charge were dismissed and the director received a heavy disciplinary measure of two months’ suspension, a one‑month suspension was not deemed excessive…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a one‑month suspension was imposed on a superior whose management and supervisory responsibility was at issue in connection with the conduct of an event during which a resident’s fatal accident occurred. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair discipline.
The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the parties’ arguments focusing on the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. In doing so, it addressed both the legal principles governing the unfair dismissal remedy system and those relating to violations of disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a serious outcome—namely, a resident’s death—occurred due to negligent preparation and management of an event, a one‑month suspension imposed on the superior can nonetheless be found to constitute unfair dismissal (unfair discipline) by the Labor Relations Commission on the ground of defects in the disciplinary procedures, even if the grounds for discipline and the level of discipline are substantively justified.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that there were grounds for discipline against the superior‑level employee, in that thorough advance preparations were not made, such as designating a person responsible for the event schedule and proceedings and allocating tasks to each person in charge. It also held that, in light of the serious outcome of the resident’s death, the fact that the employees directly responsible were dismissed, and that the director received a heavy disciplinary sanction of a two‑month suspension, a one‑month suspension was not excessive in terms of the level of discipline.
On the other hand, the panel noted that the notice of attendance and the disciplinary notice did not clearly set out the specific grounds for discipline and the violated provisions, making it difficult for the employee to fully understand and defend against the disciplinary charges.
Accordingly, although the grounds and level of discipline themselves were recognized, the panel held that this dismissal was unfair due to serious defects in the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even where the content of the disciplinary measure is severe and the outcome of the incident is serious, it is essential to check whether the notice to attend the disciplinary committee and the notice of disciplinary grounds were given in specific terms, and whether the particular rules alleged to have been violated are clearly indicated.
You should review how the disciplinary procedures are set out in the work rules and collective agreements (e.g., prior notice, opportunity to explain, composition and operation of the disciplinary committee). If there are violations of such procedures, you should bear in mind that there may be room to challenge the measure through an application to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, as with collective redundancies, “transparency of procedure” is crucial in disciplinary actions and dismissals. In particular, the notice of attendance and the disciplinary notice should clearly specify the concrete facts, the applicable provisions of the work rules or collective agreement, and the type of disciplinary measure, and the employer should document the process of providing the employee with a genuine opportunity to present his or her explanation.
If the employer rushes to impose discipline relying solely on the seriousness of the incident, the Labor Relations Commission may still find unfair dismissal due to procedural defects in the disciplinary process, even where the grounds and level of discipline are substantively justified. Employers are advised to regularly review and refine their HR regulations through professional institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
… As thorough preparations were not made regarding matters such as designating a person in charge for the event schedule and proceedings, and allocating work among the staff members, the grounds for discipline were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
As the employee, in his capacity as the superior of the staff members who caused the resident’s death, could not be regarded as bearing light responsibility, and considering that the employees directly in charge were dismissed and the director received a heavy disciplinary measure of two months’ suspension, a one‑month suspension was not deemed excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The notice of attendance did not clearly specify what the grounds for discipline were, and the disciplinary notice also failed to clearly state which conduct of the employee violated which provisions, making it unclear to the employee what the disciplinary grounds were …
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… As thorough preparations were not made regarding matters such as designating a person in charge for the event schedule and proceedings, and allocating work among the staff members, the grounds for discipline were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
As the employee, in his capacity as the superior of the staff members who caused the resident’s death, could not be regarded as bearing light responsibility, and considering that the employees directly in charge were dismissed and the director received a heavy disciplinary measure of two months’ suspension, a one‑month suspension was not deemed excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The notice of attendance did not clearly specify what the grounds for discipline were, and the disciplinary notice also failed to clearly state which conduct of the employee violated which provisions, making it unclear to the employee what the disciplinary grounds were … /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defects in disciplinary procedures (resident fatal accident event), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · noncompliance with 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Expiration of Exclusion Period (17 Years Elapsed)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to defects in disciplinary procedures (resident fatal accident event) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Defects in Disciplinary Procedures (Resident Fatal Accident Event).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2026부해981 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-27 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: … As thorough preparations were not made regarding matters such as designating a person in charge for the event schedule and proceedings, and allocating work among the staff members, the grounds for discipline were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: As the employee, in his capacity as the superior of the staff members who caused the resident’s death, could not be regarded as bearing light responsibility, and considering that the employees directly in charge were dismissed and the director received a heavy disciplinary measure of two months’ suspension, a one‑month suspension was not deemed excessive…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a one‑month suspension was imposed on a superior whose management and supervisory responsibility was at issue in connection with the conduct of an event during which a resident’s fatal accident occurred. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair discipline.
The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the parties’ arguments focusing on the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. In doing so, it addressed both the legal principles governing the unfair dismissal remedy system and those relating to violations of disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a serious outcome—namely, a resident’s death—occurred due to negligent preparation and management of an event, a one‑month suspension imposed on the superior can nonetheless be found to constitute unfair dismissal (unfair discipline) by the Labor Relations Commission on the ground of defects in the disciplinary procedures, even if the grounds for discipline and the level of discipline are substantively justified.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that there were grounds for discipline against the superior‑level employee, in that thorough advance preparations were not made, such as designating a person responsible for the event schedule and proceedings and allocating tasks to each person in charge. It also held that, in light of the serious outcome of the resident’s death, the fact that the employees directly responsible were dismissed, and that the director received a heavy disciplinary sanction of a two‑month suspension, a one‑month suspension was not excessive in terms of the level of discipline.
On the other hand, the panel noted that the notice of attendance and the disciplinary notice did not clearly set out the specific grounds for discipline and the violated provisions, making it difficult for the employee to fully understand and defend against the disciplinary charges.
Accordingly, although the grounds and level of discipline themselves were recognized, the panel held that this dismissal was unfair due to serious defects in the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even where the content of the disciplinary measure is severe and the outcome of the incident is serious, it is essential to check whether the notice to attend the disciplinary committee and the notice of disciplinary grounds were given in specific terms, and whether the particular rules alleged to have been violated are clearly indicated.
You should review how the disciplinary procedures are set out in the work rules and collective agreements (e.g., prior notice, opportunity to explain, composition and operation of the disciplinary committee). If there are violations of such procedures, you should bear in mind that there may be room to challenge the measure through an application to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, as with collective redundancies, “transparency of procedure” is crucial in disciplinary actions and dismissals. In particular, the notice of attendance and the disciplinary notice should clearly specify the concrete facts, the applicable provisions of the work rules or collective agreement, and the type of disciplinary measure, and the employer should document the process of providing the employee with a genuine opportunity to present his or her explanation.
If the employer rushes to impose discipline relying solely on the seriousness of the incident, the Labor Relations Commission may still find unfair dismissal due to procedural defects in the disciplinary process, even where the grounds and level of discipline are substantively justified. Employers are advised to regularly review and refine their HR regulations through professional institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
… As thorough preparations were not made regarding matters such as designating a person in charge for the event schedule and proceedings, and allocating work among the staff members, the grounds for discipline were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
As the employee, in his capacity as the superior of the staff members who caused the resident’s death, could not be regarded as bearing light responsibility, and considering that the employees directly in charge were dismissed and the director received a heavy disciplinary measure of two months’ suspension, a one‑month suspension was not deemed excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The notice of attendance did not clearly specify what the grounds for discipline were, and the disciplinary notice also failed to clearly state which conduct of the employee violated which provisions, making it unclear to the employee what the disciplinary grounds were …
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… As thorough preparations were not made regarding matters such as designating a person in charge for the event schedule and proceedings, and allocating work among the staff members, the grounds for discipline were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
As the employee, in his capacity as the superior of the staff members who caused the resident’s death, could not be regarded as bearing light responsibility, and considering that the employees directly in charge were dismissed and the director received a heavy disciplinary measure of two months’ suspension, a one‑month suspension was not deemed excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The notice of attendance did not clearly specify what the grounds for discipline were, and the disciplinary notice also failed to clearly state which conduct of the employee violated which provisions, making it unclear to the employee what the disciplinary grounds were … /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defects in disciplinary procedures (resident fatal accident event), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · noncompliance with 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Expiration of Exclusion Period (17 Years Elapsed)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to defects in disciplinary procedures (resident fatal accident event) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Defects in Disciplinary Procedures (Resident Fatal Accident Event).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
