Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Disciplinary Sanction Level (Misappropriation of Ready-Mixed Concrete Residuals)” (Unfair Dismissal 563)
- Date2026/07/22 04:14
- Read 18
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary sanction level (misappropriation of ready-mixed concrete residuals).”
[Case Information]
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae352 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-26 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of arbitrarily disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals without the employer’s approval and personally receiving the proceeds, or receiving part of the proceeds when fellow drivers sold such residuals, constitutes a ground for discipline as prescribed in Article 58(7) of the Rules of Employment.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee, apparently a ready-mixed concrete transport driver, was dismissed for cause after arbitrarily disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals without the employer’s approval and personally receiving the proceeds. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the conduct fell within the grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment and on the appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction. After deliberation, the Commission dismissed the employee’s application and upheld the employer’s dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the employee’s repeated misconduct—disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals without the employer’s approval, personally receiving the proceeds, or receiving part of the proceeds from colleagues’ sales of such residuals—constitutes a ground for discipline under the Rules of Employment, and whether the resulting disciplinary dismissal is so grossly disproportionate and unreasonable by social standards as to be invalid.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee had arbitrarily disposed of ready-mixed concrete residuals without the employer’s approval and personally obtained the proceeds, and that the employee had also received part of the proceeds when fellow drivers sold such residuals. It held that these acts clearly fall within the grounds for discipline prescribed in Article 58(7) of the Rules of Employment.
The panel further noted that the employee’s misconduct continued repeatedly and intentionally for a considerable period even after a similar incident in 2023; that, at the company level, the same type of problem had already arisen, so the employee could fully recognize that “arbitrary disposal of residuals” was problematic conduct, yet failed to cease such conduct; and that the employee showed little acknowledgment of or remorse for the misconduct, making it unlikely that corporate order could be restored.
In light of the above, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was based on existing grounds for discipline and that the level of disciplinary sanction could not be deemed to have clearly lost its validity by social standards. Accordingly, it ruled that the dismissal did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be borne in mind that handling the company’s property or materials (such as ready-mixed concrete residuals) without the employer’s approval and appropriating the proceeds for personal gain may be evaluated as a serious ground for discipline under the Rules of Employment, regardless of the monetary amount involved.
In particular, in workplaces where similar misconduct has already been subject to discipline, if an employee continues such conduct repeatedly or habitually under the perception that “this much is just customary practice,” there is a significant likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will also recognize the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly establish internal rules and approval procedures for handling materials and inventory that frequently arise on site, such as ready-mixed concrete residuals, and to repeatedly train and notify employees of these rules so that they can fully foresee the risk of discipline in the event of a violation.
With respect to the level of disciplinary sanction, employers should systematically organize factors identified by the Supreme Court, such as the existence of similar past cases, the repetitive and intentional nature of the misconduct, whether the employee obtained personal gain, and whether the employee has shown remorse. Doing so will increase the likelihood that the legitimacy of the disciplinary measure will be upheld if the issue of abuse of disciplinary discretion is raised before the Labor Relations Commission.
This decision of the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission once again confirms that, in unfair dismissal disputes, not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the proportionality and fairness of the level of disciplinary sanction are key criteria of review. To prevent or respond to similar cases, both employees and employers should fully understand the Labor Relations Commission’s decision-making trends and the relevant legal principles, and manage their risks in advance by consulting with specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of arbitrarily disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals without the employer’s approval and personally receiving the proceeds, or receiving part of the proceeds when fellow drivers sold such residuals, constitutes a ground for discipline as prescribed in Article 58(7) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction
The employee’s misconduct violated the Rules of Employment, and, given that there had been a similar incident in 2023, the employee could reasonably have recognized that arbitrarily disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals was problematic. However, in light of the fact that the misconduct was repeated and intentional over a considerable period and that the employee has shown no remorse for the misconduct, the disciplinary…
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of arbitrarily disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals without the employer’s approval and personally receiving the proceeds, or receiving part of the proceeds when fellow drivers sold such residuals, constitutes a ground for discipline as prescribed in Article 58(7) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction
The employee’s misconduct violated the Rules of Employment, and, given that there had been a similar incident in 2023, the employee could reasonably have recognized that arbitrarily disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals was problematic. However, in light of the fact that the misconduct was repeated and intentional over a considerable period and that the employee has shown no remorse for the misconduct, the disciplinary… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Probationary Dismissal (Security Guard’s Invasion of Privacy)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expectation of Renewal (Disabled Intern Athlete)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary sanction level (misappropriation of ready-mixed concrete residuals), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Probationary Dismissal (Security Guard’s Invasion of Privacy)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary sanction level (misappropriation of ready-mixed concrete residuals) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Sanction Level (Misappropriation of Ready-Mixed Concrete Residuals).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae352 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-26 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of arbitrarily disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals without the employer’s approval and personally receiving the proceeds, or receiving part of the proceeds when fellow drivers sold such residuals, constitutes a ground for discipline as prescribed in Article 58(7) of the Rules of Employment.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee, apparently a ready-mixed concrete transport driver, was dismissed for cause after arbitrarily disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals without the employer’s approval and personally receiving the proceeds. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the conduct fell within the grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment and on the appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction. After deliberation, the Commission dismissed the employee’s application and upheld the employer’s dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the employee’s repeated misconduct—disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals without the employer’s approval, personally receiving the proceeds, or receiving part of the proceeds from colleagues’ sales of such residuals—constitutes a ground for discipline under the Rules of Employment, and whether the resulting disciplinary dismissal is so grossly disproportionate and unreasonable by social standards as to be invalid.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee had arbitrarily disposed of ready-mixed concrete residuals without the employer’s approval and personally obtained the proceeds, and that the employee had also received part of the proceeds when fellow drivers sold such residuals. It held that these acts clearly fall within the grounds for discipline prescribed in Article 58(7) of the Rules of Employment.
The panel further noted that the employee’s misconduct continued repeatedly and intentionally for a considerable period even after a similar incident in 2023; that, at the company level, the same type of problem had already arisen, so the employee could fully recognize that “arbitrary disposal of residuals” was problematic conduct, yet failed to cease such conduct; and that the employee showed little acknowledgment of or remorse for the misconduct, making it unlikely that corporate order could be restored.
In light of the above, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was based on existing grounds for discipline and that the level of disciplinary sanction could not be deemed to have clearly lost its validity by social standards. Accordingly, it ruled that the dismissal did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be borne in mind that handling the company’s property or materials (such as ready-mixed concrete residuals) without the employer’s approval and appropriating the proceeds for personal gain may be evaluated as a serious ground for discipline under the Rules of Employment, regardless of the monetary amount involved.
In particular, in workplaces where similar misconduct has already been subject to discipline, if an employee continues such conduct repeatedly or habitually under the perception that “this much is just customary practice,” there is a significant likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will also recognize the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly establish internal rules and approval procedures for handling materials and inventory that frequently arise on site, such as ready-mixed concrete residuals, and to repeatedly train and notify employees of these rules so that they can fully foresee the risk of discipline in the event of a violation.
With respect to the level of disciplinary sanction, employers should systematically organize factors identified by the Supreme Court, such as the existence of similar past cases, the repetitive and intentional nature of the misconduct, whether the employee obtained personal gain, and whether the employee has shown remorse. Doing so will increase the likelihood that the legitimacy of the disciplinary measure will be upheld if the issue of abuse of disciplinary discretion is raised before the Labor Relations Commission.
This decision of the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission once again confirms that, in unfair dismissal disputes, not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the proportionality and fairness of the level of disciplinary sanction are key criteria of review. To prevent or respond to similar cases, both employees and employers should fully understand the Labor Relations Commission’s decision-making trends and the relevant legal principles, and manage their risks in advance by consulting with specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of arbitrarily disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals without the employer’s approval and personally receiving the proceeds, or receiving part of the proceeds when fellow drivers sold such residuals, constitutes a ground for discipline as prescribed in Article 58(7) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction
The employee’s misconduct violated the Rules of Employment, and, given that there had been a similar incident in 2023, the employee could reasonably have recognized that arbitrarily disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals was problematic. However, in light of the fact that the misconduct was repeated and intentional over a considerable period and that the employee has shown no remorse for the misconduct, the disciplinary…
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of arbitrarily disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals without the employer’s approval and personally receiving the proceeds, or receiving part of the proceeds when fellow drivers sold such residuals, constitutes a ground for discipline as prescribed in Article 58(7) of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction
The employee’s misconduct violated the Rules of Employment, and, given that there had been a similar incident in 2023, the employee could reasonably have recognized that arbitrarily disposing of ready-mixed concrete residuals was problematic. However, in light of the fact that the misconduct was repeated and intentional over a considerable period and that the employee has shown no remorse for the misconduct, the disciplinary… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Probationary Dismissal (Security Guard’s Invasion of Privacy)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expectation of Renewal (Disabled Intern Athlete)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary sanction level (misappropriation of ready-mixed concrete residuals), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Probationary Dismissal (Security Guard’s Invasion of Privacy)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary sanction level (misappropriation of ready-mixed concrete residuals) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Sanction Level (Misappropriation of Ready-Mixed Concrete Residuals).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
