Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Departure During In‑Person University Lectures)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 579)
- Date2026/07/28 04:06
- Read 17
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (unauthorized departure during in‑person university lectures).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2026부해829 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-22 · Result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: … given that the work rules provide that a certain level of poor attendance, particularly at the level of unauthorized departure, may result in dismissal; ③ the period during which the worker left the workplace during working hours to attend in‑person university lectures ran from March to October 2025; and ④ even accepting the worker’s assertions, the number of days of unauthorized departure from the workplace amounted to 16 days, it was held that the employer’s decision to impose dismissal as a disciplinary measure could not be viewed as a socially unacceptable abuse of the employer’s discretion in determining disciplinary sanctions…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a situation where an employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on a worker for leaving the workplace during working hours over an extended period to attend in‑person university lectures. The worker filed an application with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The worker argued that dismissal was an excessively severe sanction and that there were defects in the disciplinary procedure, whereas the employer asserted the legitimacy of the dismissal based on serious attendance misconduct arising from repeated unauthorized departures.
In this decision, the Labor Relations Commission focused on the grounds for discipline, the severity of the disciplinary sanction, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure. It ultimately sided with the employer and rejected the worker’s claim of unfair dismissal. Labor Law Firm Law& also continuously advises on the importance of disciplinary severity and procedural lawfulness in similar cases involving attendance issues and unauthorized departures.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “repeated unauthorized departures from the workplace during working hours and attendance at in‑person university lectures, as conduct constituting poor attendance, amount to grounds for discipline serious enough to justify dismissal, and whether the resulting level of discipline and the disciplinary procedure are lawful.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the work rules and related regulations provide that a certain level of poor attendance, particularly at the level of unauthorized departure, may result in dismissal; that the period during which the worker left the workplace during working hours to attend in‑person university lectures extended for a considerable time from March to October 2025; and that, even taking into account the worker’s assertions, the number of days of unauthorized departure from the workplace amounted to 16 days.
On this basis, the panel determined that the worker’s conduct did not constitute a one‑off or minor violation, but rather amounted to serious poor attendance repeatedly committed over a long period. Accordingly, it found it difficult to conclude that the employer’s choice of dismissal, a severe disciplinary sanction, was so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretion in determining disciplinary measures.
In addition, the panel found no defect in the disciplinary procedure, noting that the worker had been given an opportunity to defend himself by submitting written explanations to both the initial and re‑review personnel committees, and that the disciplinary committee procedures had been conducted in accordance with the applicable rules. The panel therefore held that this dismissal could not readily be regarded as unfair in terms of the grounds for discipline, the severity of the sanction, or the procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, when leaving the workplace during “working hours” for personal matters—particularly for repeated and ongoing activities such as in‑person university lectures—you should be aware that the employer may regard such conduct as unauthorized departure from the workplace and serious poor attendance. There are precedents holding that temporary departures within clearly guaranteed lunch or rest breaks are difficult to regard as unauthorized departure. However, as in this case, if working hours are infringed repeatedly and over a long period, you should bear in mind that dismissal may be justified.
Furthermore, when you are given opportunities to exercise your right of defense in the disciplinary process—such as submitting written explanations or attending personnel committee hearings—you should not treat these as mere formalities. Instead, you should respond actively by presenting as concretely as possible the facts, mitigating circumstances, and your attitude of remorse, so as to secure a reduction in the level of discipline.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the work rules and personnel regulations the grounds for discipline and standards for disciplinary severity in relation to poor attendance, unauthorized departure from the workplace, and noncompliance with work instructions. In particular, you should secure predictability by giving prior notice and training that a certain level of unauthorized departure may result in dismissal. When choosing disciplinary dismissal, it is helpful for dispute prevention to comprehensively review the duration and frequency of the misconduct, its impact on work, and the worker’s past disciplinary record and work attitude, and to keep records of the review of which level of discipline—minor or severe—would be reasonable in light of social norms.
In the disciplinary procedure, each step—convening and notifying the disciplinary committee, granting an opportunity for explanation, resolution, and notification—should be carried out in accordance with the rules. You should also provide the worker with sufficient opportunities to exercise the right of defense, both in writing and orally, at the initial and re‑review stages. Securing such procedural fairness increases the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or courts will recognize that the level of discipline falls within the employer’s discretionary range.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… given that the work rules provide that a certain level of poor attendance, particularly at the level of unauthorized departure, may result in dismissal; ③ the period during which the worker left the workplace during working hours to attend in‑person university lectures ran from March to October 2025; and ④ even accepting the worker’s assertions, the number of days of unauthorized departure from the workplace amounted to 16 days, it is difficult to view the employer’s decision to impose dismissal as a disciplinary measure as having so clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretion in determining disciplinary sanctions.
c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
There were no defects in the disciplinary procedure, as the worker was given opportunities to explain by submitting written statements to both the initial and re‑review personnel committees.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
… given that the work rules provide that a certain level of poor attendance, particularly at the level of unauthorized departure, may result in dismissal; ③ the period during which the worker left the workplace during working hours to attend in‑person university lectures ran from March to October 2025; and ④ even accepting the worker’s assertions, the number of days of unauthorized departure from the workplace amounted to 16 days, it is difficult to view the employer’s decision to impose dismissal as a disciplinary measure as having so clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretion in determining disciplinary sanctions.
c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
There were no defects in the disciplinary procedure, as the worker was given opportunities to explain by submitting written statements to both the initial and re‑review personnel committees. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (unauthorized departure during in‑person university lectures), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Removal from Position (Dismissal of Branch Manager)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (unauthorized departure during in‑person university lectures) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Departure During In‑Person University Lectures).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (unauthorized departure during in‑person university lectures).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2026부해829 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-22 · Result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: … given that the work rules provide that a certain level of poor attendance, particularly at the level of unauthorized departure, may result in dismissal; ③ the period during which the worker left the workplace during working hours to attend in‑person university lectures ran from March to October 2025; and ④ even accepting the worker’s assertions, the number of days of unauthorized departure from the workplace amounted to 16 days, it was held that the employer’s decision to impose dismissal as a disciplinary measure could not be viewed as a socially unacceptable abuse of the employer’s discretion in determining disciplinary sanctions…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a situation where an employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on a worker for leaving the workplace during working hours over an extended period to attend in‑person university lectures. The worker filed an application with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The worker argued that dismissal was an excessively severe sanction and that there were defects in the disciplinary procedure, whereas the employer asserted the legitimacy of the dismissal based on serious attendance misconduct arising from repeated unauthorized departures.
In this decision, the Labor Relations Commission focused on the grounds for discipline, the severity of the disciplinary sanction, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure. It ultimately sided with the employer and rejected the worker’s claim of unfair dismissal. Labor Law Firm Law& also continuously advises on the importance of disciplinary severity and procedural lawfulness in similar cases involving attendance issues and unauthorized departures.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “repeated unauthorized departures from the workplace during working hours and attendance at in‑person university lectures, as conduct constituting poor attendance, amount to grounds for discipline serious enough to justify dismissal, and whether the resulting level of discipline and the disciplinary procedure are lawful.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the work rules and related regulations provide that a certain level of poor attendance, particularly at the level of unauthorized departure, may result in dismissal; that the period during which the worker left the workplace during working hours to attend in‑person university lectures extended for a considerable time from March to October 2025; and that, even taking into account the worker’s assertions, the number of days of unauthorized departure from the workplace amounted to 16 days.
On this basis, the panel determined that the worker’s conduct did not constitute a one‑off or minor violation, but rather amounted to serious poor attendance repeatedly committed over a long period. Accordingly, it found it difficult to conclude that the employer’s choice of dismissal, a severe disciplinary sanction, was so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretion in determining disciplinary measures.
In addition, the panel found no defect in the disciplinary procedure, noting that the worker had been given an opportunity to defend himself by submitting written explanations to both the initial and re‑review personnel committees, and that the disciplinary committee procedures had been conducted in accordance with the applicable rules. The panel therefore held that this dismissal could not readily be regarded as unfair in terms of the grounds for discipline, the severity of the sanction, or the procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, when leaving the workplace during “working hours” for personal matters—particularly for repeated and ongoing activities such as in‑person university lectures—you should be aware that the employer may regard such conduct as unauthorized departure from the workplace and serious poor attendance. There are precedents holding that temporary departures within clearly guaranteed lunch or rest breaks are difficult to regard as unauthorized departure. However, as in this case, if working hours are infringed repeatedly and over a long period, you should bear in mind that dismissal may be justified.
Furthermore, when you are given opportunities to exercise your right of defense in the disciplinary process—such as submitting written explanations or attending personnel committee hearings—you should not treat these as mere formalities. Instead, you should respond actively by presenting as concretely as possible the facts, mitigating circumstances, and your attitude of remorse, so as to secure a reduction in the level of discipline.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the work rules and personnel regulations the grounds for discipline and standards for disciplinary severity in relation to poor attendance, unauthorized departure from the workplace, and noncompliance with work instructions. In particular, you should secure predictability by giving prior notice and training that a certain level of unauthorized departure may result in dismissal. When choosing disciplinary dismissal, it is helpful for dispute prevention to comprehensively review the duration and frequency of the misconduct, its impact on work, and the worker’s past disciplinary record and work attitude, and to keep records of the review of which level of discipline—minor or severe—would be reasonable in light of social norms.
In the disciplinary procedure, each step—convening and notifying the disciplinary committee, granting an opportunity for explanation, resolution, and notification—should be carried out in accordance with the rules. You should also provide the worker with sufficient opportunities to exercise the right of defense, both in writing and orally, at the initial and re‑review stages. Securing such procedural fairness increases the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or courts will recognize that the level of discipline falls within the employer’s discretionary range.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… given that the work rules provide that a certain level of poor attendance, particularly at the level of unauthorized departure, may result in dismissal; ③ the period during which the worker left the workplace during working hours to attend in‑person university lectures ran from March to October 2025; and ④ even accepting the worker’s assertions, the number of days of unauthorized departure from the workplace amounted to 16 days, it is difficult to view the employer’s decision to impose dismissal as a disciplinary measure as having so clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretion in determining disciplinary sanctions.
c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
There were no defects in the disciplinary procedure, as the worker was given opportunities to explain by submitting written statements to both the initial and re‑review personnel committees.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
… given that the work rules provide that a certain level of poor attendance, particularly at the level of unauthorized departure, may result in dismissal; ③ the period during which the worker left the workplace during working hours to attend in‑person university lectures ran from March to October 2025; and ④ even accepting the worker’s assertions, the number of days of unauthorized departure from the workplace amounted to 16 days, it is difficult to view the employer’s decision to impose dismissal as a disciplinary measure as having so clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretion in determining disciplinary sanctions.
c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
There were no defects in the disciplinary procedure, as the worker was given opportunities to explain by submitting written statements to both the initial and re‑review personnel committees. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (unauthorized departure during in‑person university lectures), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Removal from Position (Dismissal of Branch Manager)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (unauthorized departure during in‑person university lectures) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Departure During In‑Person University Lectures).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
