Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Abuse of Disciplinary Action for Concurrent Employment (Encouraged External Activities)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 574)
- Date2026/07/26 04:10
- Read 12
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the initial ruling was upheld on the issue of “abuse of disciplinary action for concurrent employment (encouraged external activities).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9489 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-22 · Case result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues: The employer’s application of work rules violations to concurrent positions and other external activities that it had previously encouraged among executives and employees was an inconsistent act contrary to the trust formed among internal members; most other employees who had engaged in the same work rules violations were not disciplined, resulting in a lack of proportionality and consistency in disciplinary measures; and the employer had not established any criteria or procedures for permitting external activities, such that the employer was at fault for the situation leading to discipline. In light of all these factors, the grounds for discipline were …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer had in effect encouraged executives and employees to engage in concurrent employment and external activities, but later imposed severe disciplinary action on a specific employee based on the concurrent employment prohibition clause in the work rules, leading to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. At the re‑examination stage before the Central Labor Relations Commission, the initial decision was upheld, and the central issue was whether the grounds for discipline were justified. This decision, in which Labor Law Firm Law& organized meaningful legal principles in an unfair dismissal dispute, is noteworthy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employer suddenly treats concurrent employment and external activities that it has in fact encouraged as violations of the work rules and imposes severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal, can the justification of the disciplinary grounds be recognized to such an extent that the dismissal is not unfair?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employer had routinely encouraged executives and employees to engage in concurrent employment and other external activities; that most other executives and employees who had committed the same violations of the work rules were not disciplined, resulting in a serious lack of consistency and proportionality in discipline; and that the employer had imposed discipline solely on the basis of a work rules violation without having established any prior criteria or approval procedures for concurrent employment and external activities.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case constituted unfair dismissal, as the grounds for discipline themselves could not be regarded as socially justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if concurrent employment or external activities have long been taken for granted or encouraged by the company, where there is a concurrent employment prohibition clause in the work rules, it is necessary at a minimum to retain evidence of prior approval or permissive practice—such as emails or documents showing approval through the reporting/approval line. In addition, confirming whether colleagues engaged in similar concurrent employment have been disciplined, and whether the company has specific criteria for managing concurrent employment, can provide important evidence in future unfair dismissal remedy proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission when disputing the grounds for discipline and proportionality.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, since violations of concurrent employment prohibitions frequently arise as serious disciplinary grounds that may lead to dismissal, it is advisable to go beyond abstract provisions in the work rules and clearly document “the scope of permissible external activities, prior approval procedures, and standards for the level of discipline in the event of violations.” In addition, for external activities that the company has in fact previously allowed or encouraged, the company should provide a grace period and prior notice when changing the system, and apply a uniform level of discipline to similar cases in order to prevent findings of unfair dismissal due to abuse of disciplinary discretion and violations of proportionality.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the following: that applying work rules violations to concurrent employment and other external activities that the employer had encouraged among executives and employees was an inconsistent act contrary to the trust formed among internal members; that most of those who had committed the same work rules violations were not disciplined, which was inconsistent with the principle of proportionality in discipline; and that the employer was at fault because it had not established any criteria or procedures for permitting external activities and nevertheless proceeded to impose discipline, the grounds for discipline cannot be regarded as justified. Accordingly, the level of discipline and the procedures followed are not examined.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
In light of the following: that applying work rules violations to concurrent employment and other external activities that the employer had encouraged among executives and employees was an inconsistent act contrary to the trust formed among internal members; that most of those who had committed the same work rules violations were not disciplined, which was inconsistent with the principle of proportionality in discipline; and that the employer was at fault because it had not established any criteria or procedures for permitting external activities and nevertheless proceeded to impose discipline, the grounds for discipline cannot be regarded as justified. Accordingly, the level of discipline and the procedures followed are not examined. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Employee Status and Written Notice (Service Workers)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, abuse of disciplinary action for concurrent employment (encouraged external activities), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Employee Status and Written Notice (Service Workers)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to abuse of disciplinary action for concurrent employment (encouraged external activities) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Abuse of Disciplinary Action for Concurrent Employment (Encouraged External Activities).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the initial ruling was upheld on the issue of “abuse of disciplinary action for concurrent employment (encouraged external activities).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9489 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-22 · Case result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues: The employer’s application of work rules violations to concurrent positions and other external activities that it had previously encouraged among executives and employees was an inconsistent act contrary to the trust formed among internal members; most other employees who had engaged in the same work rules violations were not disciplined, resulting in a lack of proportionality and consistency in disciplinary measures; and the employer had not established any criteria or procedures for permitting external activities, such that the employer was at fault for the situation leading to discipline. In light of all these factors, the grounds for discipline were …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer had in effect encouraged executives and employees to engage in concurrent employment and external activities, but later imposed severe disciplinary action on a specific employee based on the concurrent employment prohibition clause in the work rules, leading to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. At the re‑examination stage before the Central Labor Relations Commission, the initial decision was upheld, and the central issue was whether the grounds for discipline were justified. This decision, in which Labor Law Firm Law& organized meaningful legal principles in an unfair dismissal dispute, is noteworthy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employer suddenly treats concurrent employment and external activities that it has in fact encouraged as violations of the work rules and imposes severe disciplinary measures such as dismissal, can the justification of the disciplinary grounds be recognized to such an extent that the dismissal is not unfair?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employer had routinely encouraged executives and employees to engage in concurrent employment and other external activities; that most other executives and employees who had committed the same violations of the work rules were not disciplined, resulting in a serious lack of consistency and proportionality in discipline; and that the employer had imposed discipline solely on the basis of a work rules violation without having established any prior criteria or approval procedures for concurrent employment and external activities.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case constituted unfair dismissal, as the grounds for discipline themselves could not be regarded as socially justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if concurrent employment or external activities have long been taken for granted or encouraged by the company, where there is a concurrent employment prohibition clause in the work rules, it is necessary at a minimum to retain evidence of prior approval or permissive practice—such as emails or documents showing approval through the reporting/approval line. In addition, confirming whether colleagues engaged in similar concurrent employment have been disciplined, and whether the company has specific criteria for managing concurrent employment, can provide important evidence in future unfair dismissal remedy proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission when disputing the grounds for discipline and proportionality.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, since violations of concurrent employment prohibitions frequently arise as serious disciplinary grounds that may lead to dismissal, it is advisable to go beyond abstract provisions in the work rules and clearly document “the scope of permissible external activities, prior approval procedures, and standards for the level of discipline in the event of violations.” In addition, for external activities that the company has in fact previously allowed or encouraged, the company should provide a grace period and prior notice when changing the system, and apply a uniform level of discipline to similar cases in order to prevent findings of unfair dismissal due to abuse of disciplinary discretion and violations of proportionality.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the following: that applying work rules violations to concurrent employment and other external activities that the employer had encouraged among executives and employees was an inconsistent act contrary to the trust formed among internal members; that most of those who had committed the same work rules violations were not disciplined, which was inconsistent with the principle of proportionality in discipline; and that the employer was at fault because it had not established any criteria or procedures for permitting external activities and nevertheless proceeded to impose discipline, the grounds for discipline cannot be regarded as justified. Accordingly, the level of discipline and the procedures followed are not examined.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
In light of the following: that applying work rules violations to concurrent employment and other external activities that the employer had encouraged among executives and employees was an inconsistent act contrary to the trust formed among internal members; that most of those who had committed the same work rules violations were not disciplined, which was inconsistent with the principle of proportionality in discipline; and that the employer was at fault because it had not established any criteria or procedures for permitting external activities and nevertheless proceeded to impose discipline, the grounds for discipline cannot be regarded as justified. Accordingly, the level of discipline and the procedures followed are not examined. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Employee Status and Written Notice (Service Workers)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, abuse of disciplinary action for concurrent employment (encouraged external activities), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Employee Status and Written Notice (Service Workers)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to abuse of disciplinary action for concurrent employment (encouraged external activities) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Abuse of Disciplinary Action for Concurrent Employment (Encouraged External Activities).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
