Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Whether a Caution Constitutes Disciplinary Action’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 595)
- Date2026/08/04 04:17
- Read 9
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of whether a “caution” constituted disciplinary action.
Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae165 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Article 10 (Types and Standards of Disciplinary Action) of the Company’s Rules on Rewards and Punishments for Employees defines five types of disciplinary action—“reprimand, reduction in pay, suspension from duty, demotion, and dismissal”—and therefore a caution does not constitute disciplinary action.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the company imposed a “caution” on an employee. The employee then filed an application with the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this constituted an unfair personnel measure amounting to disciplinary action. The Commission closely examined the company’s Rules on Rewards and Punishments for Employees, Remuneration Rules, and Personnel Rules to determine whether a “caution” falls within “dismissal, disciplinary action, or other disadvantageous disposition” prohibited under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a ‘caution’ that is not included among the types of disciplinary action under the company’s Rules on Rewards and Punishments can, solely on the ground that it may lead to future disciplinary measures or create instability in personnel status, be regarded as ‘disciplinary action or other disadvantageous disposition’ prohibited under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that Article 10 of the Rules on Rewards and Punishments for Employees limits the types of disciplinary action to five—“reprimand, reduction in pay, suspension from duty, demotion, and dismissal”; that neither the Remuneration Rules nor the Personnel Rules contain any provision imposing specific personnel or monetary disadvantages, such as restrictions on promotion or reduction of performance-based bonuses, solely on the ground that an employee has received a caution; and that the employee’s assertion that “if three cautions are accumulated, there is a possibility of a future warning or disciplinary action” is nothing more than an uncertain possibility that has not yet materialized.
In light of these factors, the Commission held that the “caution” in this case cannot readily be regarded as a disciplinary measure constituting “dismissal, disciplinary action, or other disadvantageous disposition” within the meaning of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, the Commission found that no dismissal disposition exists in this case and ruled that the employee’s application for a remedy for unfair dismissal must be dismissed on the ground that there is no disadvantageous disposition that can be the subject of a remedy.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to understand that not every personnel measure that is dissatisfactory automatically constitutes unfair dismissal or unfair disciplinary action. The key questions are whether there has been an actual disadvantage in terms of status or wages, and whether the measure is a sanction expressly stipulated in the relevant rules. However, if repeated “cautions” in fact lead to a warning or disciplinary action, or result in specific disadvantages in promotion or performance-based bonuses, the employee should challenge the disposition in effect at that time before the Labor Relations Commission. For this purpose, it is advisable to keep personnel records and notification documents carefully.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to clearly distinguish and define the types and effects of disciplinary action in the Rules on Rewards and Punishments, and, when using non-disciplinary guidance such as “caution” or “instruction,” to ensure that the regulatory framework clearly indicates that such measures are not disciplinary in nature. In addition, if the employer intends to link a “caution” to specific disadvantageous effects such as restrictions on promotion or reduction of performance-based bonuses, such a measure itself may be evaluated as disciplinary action or a disadvantageous disposition. In that case, the employer must ensure that the reasons and procedures comply with Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act and that such measures are not abused, and should consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
This decision by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission is a useful example of where the line is drawn between “disciplinary action” and a mere “caution” in unfair dismissal and redundancy cases, and illustrates how the Commission places significant weight on the wording of personnel regulations and on whether any actual disadvantage has occurred.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Article 10 (Types and Standards of Disciplinary Action) of the Rules on Rewards and Punishments for Employees defines five types of disciplinary action—“reprimand, reduction in pay, suspension from duty, demotion, and dismissal”—and therefore a caution does not constitute disciplinary action. The employee’s argument that, after receiving a caution, if three or more cautions are accumulated again within one year, there is a possibility of receiving a warning or disciplinary action in the course of continuing the employment relationship, is nothing more than an uncertain circumstance. Further, as there is no provision in the Remuneration Rules or Personnel Rules that imposes disadvantages in promotion or management performance bonuses on the ground that an employee has received a caution, it cannot be said that the employee has suffered any personnel or monetary disadvantage. Therefore, the caution does not fall under “other disadvantageous disposition” in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act…
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Article 10 (Types and Standards of Disciplinary Action) of the Rules on Rewards and Punishments for Employees defines five types of disciplinary action—“reprimand, reduction in pay, suspension from duty, demotion, and dismissal”—and therefore a caution does not constitute disciplinary action. The employee’s argument that, after receiving a caution, if three or more cautions are accumulated again within one year, there is a possibility of receiving a warning or disciplinary action in the course of continuing the employment relationship, is nothing more than an uncertain circumstance. Further, as there is no provision in the Remuneration Rules or Personnel Rules that imposes disadvantages in promotion or management performance bonuses on the ground that an employee has received a caution, it cannot be said that the employee has suffered any personnel or monetary disadvantage. Therefore, the caution does not fall under “other disadvantageous disposition” in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Intention to Commit Unfair Labor Practice (Refusal to Rehire Fixed-Term Employee)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, whether a caution constitutes disciplinary action, others, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Intention to Commit Unfair Labor Practice (Refusal to Rehire Fixed-Term Employee)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to whether a caution constitutes disciplinary action can be found under “List of Decisions on Whether a Caution Constitutes Disciplinary Action” in a new window.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of whether a “caution” constituted disciplinary action.
Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae165 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Article 10 (Types and Standards of Disciplinary Action) of the Company’s Rules on Rewards and Punishments for Employees defines five types of disciplinary action—“reprimand, reduction in pay, suspension from duty, demotion, and dismissal”—and therefore a caution does not constitute disciplinary action.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the company imposed a “caution” on an employee. The employee then filed an application with the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this constituted an unfair personnel measure amounting to disciplinary action. The Commission closely examined the company’s Rules on Rewards and Punishments for Employees, Remuneration Rules, and Personnel Rules to determine whether a “caution” falls within “dismissal, disciplinary action, or other disadvantageous disposition” prohibited under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a ‘caution’ that is not included among the types of disciplinary action under the company’s Rules on Rewards and Punishments can, solely on the ground that it may lead to future disciplinary measures or create instability in personnel status, be regarded as ‘disciplinary action or other disadvantageous disposition’ prohibited under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that Article 10 of the Rules on Rewards and Punishments for Employees limits the types of disciplinary action to five—“reprimand, reduction in pay, suspension from duty, demotion, and dismissal”; that neither the Remuneration Rules nor the Personnel Rules contain any provision imposing specific personnel or monetary disadvantages, such as restrictions on promotion or reduction of performance-based bonuses, solely on the ground that an employee has received a caution; and that the employee’s assertion that “if three cautions are accumulated, there is a possibility of a future warning or disciplinary action” is nothing more than an uncertain possibility that has not yet materialized.
In light of these factors, the Commission held that the “caution” in this case cannot readily be regarded as a disciplinary measure constituting “dismissal, disciplinary action, or other disadvantageous disposition” within the meaning of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, the Commission found that no dismissal disposition exists in this case and ruled that the employee’s application for a remedy for unfair dismissal must be dismissed on the ground that there is no disadvantageous disposition that can be the subject of a remedy.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to understand that not every personnel measure that is dissatisfactory automatically constitutes unfair dismissal or unfair disciplinary action. The key questions are whether there has been an actual disadvantage in terms of status or wages, and whether the measure is a sanction expressly stipulated in the relevant rules. However, if repeated “cautions” in fact lead to a warning or disciplinary action, or result in specific disadvantages in promotion or performance-based bonuses, the employee should challenge the disposition in effect at that time before the Labor Relations Commission. For this purpose, it is advisable to keep personnel records and notification documents carefully.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to clearly distinguish and define the types and effects of disciplinary action in the Rules on Rewards and Punishments, and, when using non-disciplinary guidance such as “caution” or “instruction,” to ensure that the regulatory framework clearly indicates that such measures are not disciplinary in nature. In addition, if the employer intends to link a “caution” to specific disadvantageous effects such as restrictions on promotion or reduction of performance-based bonuses, such a measure itself may be evaluated as disciplinary action or a disadvantageous disposition. In that case, the employer must ensure that the reasons and procedures comply with Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act and that such measures are not abused, and should consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
This decision by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission is a useful example of where the line is drawn between “disciplinary action” and a mere “caution” in unfair dismissal and redundancy cases, and illustrates how the Commission places significant weight on the wording of personnel regulations and on whether any actual disadvantage has occurred.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Article 10 (Types and Standards of Disciplinary Action) of the Rules on Rewards and Punishments for Employees defines five types of disciplinary action—“reprimand, reduction in pay, suspension from duty, demotion, and dismissal”—and therefore a caution does not constitute disciplinary action. The employee’s argument that, after receiving a caution, if three or more cautions are accumulated again within one year, there is a possibility of receiving a warning or disciplinary action in the course of continuing the employment relationship, is nothing more than an uncertain circumstance. Further, as there is no provision in the Remuneration Rules or Personnel Rules that imposes disadvantages in promotion or management performance bonuses on the ground that an employee has received a caution, it cannot be said that the employee has suffered any personnel or monetary disadvantage. Therefore, the caution does not fall under “other disadvantageous disposition” in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act…
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Article 10 (Types and Standards of Disciplinary Action) of the Rules on Rewards and Punishments for Employees defines five types of disciplinary action—“reprimand, reduction in pay, suspension from duty, demotion, and dismissal”—and therefore a caution does not constitute disciplinary action. The employee’s argument that, after receiving a caution, if three or more cautions are accumulated again within one year, there is a possibility of receiving a warning or disciplinary action in the course of continuing the employment relationship, is nothing more than an uncertain circumstance. Further, as there is no provision in the Remuneration Rules or Personnel Rules that imposes disadvantages in promotion or management performance bonuses on the ground that an employee has received a caution, it cannot be said that the employee has suffered any personnel or monetary disadvantage. Therefore, the caution does not fall under “other disadvantageous disposition” in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Intention to Commit Unfair Labor Practice (Refusal to Rehire Fixed-Term Employee)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, whether a caution constitutes disciplinary action, others, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Intention to Commit Unfair Labor Practice (Refusal to Rehire Fixed-Term Employee)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to whether a caution constitutes disciplinary action can be found under “List of Decisions on Whether a Caution Constitutes Disciplinary Action” in a new window.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
