Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Dismissal Sanctions (Drunk Driving · Assault on Superior)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 580)
- Date2026/07/28 04:11
- Read 23
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal sanctions (drunk driving · assault on superior).”
Decision body: Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae146 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-22 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was legitimate to treat the employee’s drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior, and unauthorized departure from the workplace as grounds for discipline under Article 59 of the Personnel Regulations.
b. Appropriateness of the level of sanction
In light of the motives and circumstances of the employee’s misconduct and the standards for disciplinary sanctions set out in the company’s rules of employment, the level of sanction was appropriate.
c. Legality of the procedure
The procedure was lawful, as notice of appearance before the Personnel Committee, the guarantee of an opportunity to explain and of the right to request reconsideration, and the delivery of the decision were all carried out properly.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the company imposed disciplinary dismissal on an employee for drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior, and unauthorized departure from the workplace. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on compliance with the personnel regulations and disciplinary procedures, and on the appropriateness of the level of discipline (sanction), ultimately ruling in favor of the employer. In this process, Labor Law Firm Law& organized the relevant legal principles and derived practical implications.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether the misconduct of drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior, and unauthorized departure from the workplace constitutes grounds for disciplinary dismissal under the Personnel Regulations, and whether the resulting level of disciplinary dismissal and the procedures followed were lawful.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee’s drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior, and unauthorized departure from the workplace were established facts; that these acts fell within the grounds for discipline set out in Article 59 of the Personnel Regulations; that the disciplinary procedures, including notice of appearance before the Disciplinary Committee, the provision of an opportunity to explain, the guarantee of the right to request reconsideration, and notice of the decision, were conducted in accordance with the regulations; and that, taking into account the motives and circumstances of the misconduct and the company’s standards for the level of disciplinary sanctions, the sanction could not be regarded as excessively harsh by social norms.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was justified in terms of the grounds for discipline, the level of sanction, and the disciplinary procedures, and therefore did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior in the workplace, and unauthorized departure from the workplace can each, on their own, constitute grounds for disciplinary dismissal that seriously undermine corporate order. In particular, where multiple acts of misconduct occur in combination, the Labor Relations Commission strictly examines whether, according to social norms, it has become difficult to continue the employment relationship. Employees should recognize that it is difficult to obtain relief based solely on circumstances such as “first offense” or “emotional dispute.”
If an employee considers a disciplinary measure to be unjust, it is necessary to assert and prove, with specific evidence, whether the conduct falls within the disciplinary grounds under the personnel regulations, whether there is any imbalance with the company’s prescribed standards for the level of disciplinary sanctions, and whether there were any procedural violations such as in the notice of appearance or the opportunity to explain.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and personnel regulations both the grounds for discipline and the standards for the level of sanctions in relation to acts that seriously disrupt corporate order, such as drunk driving, abusive language and assault, and unauthorized departure from the workplace. When convening a Disciplinary Committee, the employer should meticulously comply with procedures such as giving notice of appearance, guaranteeing the right of defense (opportunity to explain), and giving written notice of the decision. Keeping records such as minutes and notices will make it easier to prove the legitimacy of the discipline at the Labor Relations Commission stage.
In addition, while maintaining consistency in the level of sanctions across similar cases, the employer should comprehensively consider the motives and circumstances of the misconduct, the nature of the employee’s duties, and the impact on the company’s image and safety when determining the level of disciplinary sanction. This is a key point in reducing disputes over abuse of discretionary power in imposing discipline.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was legitimate to treat the employee’s drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior, and unauthorized departure from the workplace as grounds for discipline under Article 59 of the Personnel Regulations.
b. Appropriateness of the level of sanction
In light of the motives and circumstances of the employee’s misconduct and the standards for disciplinary sanctions set out in the company’s rules of employment, the level of sanction was appropriate.
c. Legality of the procedure
The procedure was lawful, as notice of appearance before the Personnel Committee, the guarantee of an opportunity to explain and of the right to request reconsideration, and the delivery of the decision were all carried out properly.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was legitimate to treat the employee’s drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior, and unauthorized departure from the workplace as grounds for discipline under Article 59 of the Personnel Regulations.
b. Appropriateness of the level of sanction
In light of the motives and circumstances of the employee’s misconduct and the standards for disciplinary sanctions set out in the company’s rules of employment, the level of sanction was appropriate.
c. Legality of the procedure
The procedure was lawful, as notice of appearance before the Personnel Committee, the guarantee of an opportunity to explain and of the right to request reconsideration, and the delivery of the decision were all carried out properly. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Disciplinary Sanctions (Unauthorized Departure from University In-Person Lecture)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal sanctions (drunk driving · assault on superior), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, violation of company policy · failure to comply 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 ‘Disciplinary Sanctions (Unauthorized Departure from University In-Person Lecture)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal sanctions (drunk driving · assault on superior) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal Sanctions (Drunk Driving · Assault on Superior).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal sanctions (drunk driving · assault on superior).”
Decision body: Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae146 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-22 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was legitimate to treat the employee’s drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior, and unauthorized departure from the workplace as grounds for discipline under Article 59 of the Personnel Regulations.
b. Appropriateness of the level of sanction
In light of the motives and circumstances of the employee’s misconduct and the standards for disciplinary sanctions set out in the company’s rules of employment, the level of sanction was appropriate.
c. Legality of the procedure
The procedure was lawful, as notice of appearance before the Personnel Committee, the guarantee of an opportunity to explain and of the right to request reconsideration, and the delivery of the decision were all carried out properly.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the company imposed disciplinary dismissal on an employee for drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior, and unauthorized departure from the workplace. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on compliance with the personnel regulations and disciplinary procedures, and on the appropriateness of the level of discipline (sanction), ultimately ruling in favor of the employer. In this process, Labor Law Firm Law& organized the relevant legal principles and derived practical implications.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether the misconduct of drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior, and unauthorized departure from the workplace constitutes grounds for disciplinary dismissal under the Personnel Regulations, and whether the resulting level of disciplinary dismissal and the procedures followed were lawful.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee’s drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior, and unauthorized departure from the workplace were established facts; that these acts fell within the grounds for discipline set out in Article 59 of the Personnel Regulations; that the disciplinary procedures, including notice of appearance before the Disciplinary Committee, the provision of an opportunity to explain, the guarantee of the right to request reconsideration, and notice of the decision, were conducted in accordance with the regulations; and that, taking into account the motives and circumstances of the misconduct and the company’s standards for the level of disciplinary sanctions, the sanction could not be regarded as excessively harsh by social norms.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was justified in terms of the grounds for discipline, the level of sanction, and the disciplinary procedures, and therefore did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior in the workplace, and unauthorized departure from the workplace can each, on their own, constitute grounds for disciplinary dismissal that seriously undermine corporate order. In particular, where multiple acts of misconduct occur in combination, the Labor Relations Commission strictly examines whether, according to social norms, it has become difficult to continue the employment relationship. Employees should recognize that it is difficult to obtain relief based solely on circumstances such as “first offense” or “emotional dispute.”
If an employee considers a disciplinary measure to be unjust, it is necessary to assert and prove, with specific evidence, whether the conduct falls within the disciplinary grounds under the personnel regulations, whether there is any imbalance with the company’s prescribed standards for the level of disciplinary sanctions, and whether there were any procedural violations such as in the notice of appearance or the opportunity to explain.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and personnel regulations both the grounds for discipline and the standards for the level of sanctions in relation to acts that seriously disrupt corporate order, such as drunk driving, abusive language and assault, and unauthorized departure from the workplace. When convening a Disciplinary Committee, the employer should meticulously comply with procedures such as giving notice of appearance, guaranteeing the right of defense (opportunity to explain), and giving written notice of the decision. Keeping records such as minutes and notices will make it easier to prove the legitimacy of the discipline at the Labor Relations Commission stage.
In addition, while maintaining consistency in the level of sanctions across similar cases, the employer should comprehensively consider the motives and circumstances of the misconduct, the nature of the employee’s duties, and the impact on the company’s image and safety when determining the level of disciplinary sanction. This is a key point in reducing disputes over abuse of discretionary power in imposing discipline.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was legitimate to treat the employee’s drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior, and unauthorized departure from the workplace as grounds for discipline under Article 59 of the Personnel Regulations.
b. Appropriateness of the level of sanction
In light of the motives and circumstances of the employee’s misconduct and the standards for disciplinary sanctions set out in the company’s rules of employment, the level of sanction was appropriate.
c. Legality of the procedure
The procedure was lawful, as notice of appearance before the Personnel Committee, the guarantee of an opportunity to explain and of the right to request reconsideration, and the delivery of the decision were all carried out properly.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
It was legitimate to treat the employee’s drunk driving, abusive language and assault against a superior, and unauthorized departure from the workplace as grounds for discipline under Article 59 of the Personnel Regulations.
b. Appropriateness of the level of sanction
In light of the motives and circumstances of the employee’s misconduct and the standards for disciplinary sanctions set out in the company’s rules of employment, the level of sanction was appropriate.
c. Legality of the procedure
The procedure was lawful, as notice of appearance before the Personnel Committee, the guarantee of an opportunity to explain and of the right to request reconsideration, and the delivery of the decision were all carried out properly. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Disciplinary Sanctions (Unauthorized Departure from University In-Person Lecture)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal sanctions (drunk driving · assault on superior), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, violation of company policy · failure to comply 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 ‘Disciplinary Sanctions (Unauthorized Departure from University In-Person Lecture)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal sanctions (drunk driving · assault on superior) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal Sanctions (Drunk Driving · Assault on Superior).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
