Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Failure to Perform Job Duties Causing Damage)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 598)
- Date2026/08/05 04:14
- Read 11
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “disciplinary severity (failure to perform job duties causing damage).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9498 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reexamination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
a. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee had job-related duties but failed to perform them, thereby causing damage to the company; this constitutes grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: The level of discipline imposed on the employee was deemed appropriate and could not be regarded as deviating from or abusing the employer’s discretionary authority in disciplinary matters.
c. —
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was dismissed for cause on the ground that the employee failed to perform job-related duties, resulting in damage to the company. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal, and the matter was contested before the Commission. The Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the Local Labor Relations Commission’s initial decision to dismiss the application, finding the employer’s disciplinary dismissal to be justified. In this article, we整理 the criteria for determining unfair dismissal and the Labor Relations Commission’s reasoning structure from the practical perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee has failed to perform job-related duties and thereby caused damage to the company, whether the resulting disciplinary dismissal is justified in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) the level of discipline, and (iii) the disciplinary procedure.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: despite the employee having clearly assigned job-related duties, the employee failed to perform them, which in fact caused damage to the company; the misconduct in question falls under the grounds for discipline stipulated in the company’s rules of employment and related regulations; the choice of disciplinary dismissal as the level of discipline cannot readily be regarded as markedly excessive in light of social norms; and there were no procedural defects, in that a properly constituted disciplinary committee was convened and the employee was afforded an opportunity to present explanations.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case could not be viewed as a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority in disciplinary matters, and that it did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to clearly understand in advance what one’s job-related duties are (scope of work, reporting and management responsibilities, duty to prevent damage, etc.), and to be aware that repeated neglect of such duties may ultimately lead to disciplinary dismissal. Where damage has occurred to the company, the employee should整理, as objectively as possible, the circumstances leading to the damage, the employee’s defenses, and any efforts to mitigate or remedy the damage, and actively submit such materials during the explanatory process before the disciplinary committee.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to整理 in advance the reasoning as to (i) which specific grounds for discipline under the rules of employment and personnel regulations the misconduct falls into, and (ii) whether the level of discipline is not excessive in light of internal standards and social norms. In addition, employers should bear in mind that, to avoid an unfair dismissal finding by the Labor Relations Commission, they must faithfully ensure procedural fairness, including the lawful composition of the disciplinary committee, specific notice of the grounds for discipline, and the provision of an opportunity for the employee to present explanations.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee had job-related duties but failed to perform them, thereby causing damage to the company; this constitutes grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: The level of discipline imposed on the employee was deemed appropriate and could not be regarded as deviating from or abusing the employer’s discretionary authority in disciplinary matters.
c. Legality of the disciplinary procedure: A properly constituted disciplinary committee was convened and an opportunity to present explanations was afforded, and therefore the procedure was found to be free from defects.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee had job-related duties but failed to perform them, thereby causing damage to the company; this constitutes grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: The level of discipline imposed on the employee was deemed appropriate and could not be regarded as deviating from or abusing the employer’s discretionary authority in disciplinary matters.
c. Legality of the disciplinary procedure: A properly constituted disciplinary committee was convened and an opportunity to present explanations was afforded, and therefore the procedure was found to be free from defects. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Mandatory Retirement (Early Resignation Notice by General Secretary)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Non-fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (failure to perform job duties causing damage), disciplinary dismissal, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Coerced Voluntary Resignation (Resignation Letter with Salary Conditions),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to disciplinary severity (failure to perform job duties causing damage) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Disciplinary Severity (Failure to Perform Job Duties Causing Damage).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “disciplinary severity (failure to perform job duties causing damage).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9498 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reexamination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
a. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee had job-related duties but failed to perform them, thereby causing damage to the company; this constitutes grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: The level of discipline imposed on the employee was deemed appropriate and could not be regarded as deviating from or abusing the employer’s discretionary authority in disciplinary matters.
c. —
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was dismissed for cause on the ground that the employee failed to perform job-related duties, resulting in damage to the company. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal, and the matter was contested before the Commission. The Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the Local Labor Relations Commission’s initial decision to dismiss the application, finding the employer’s disciplinary dismissal to be justified. In this article, we整理 the criteria for determining unfair dismissal and the Labor Relations Commission’s reasoning structure from the practical perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee has failed to perform job-related duties and thereby caused damage to the company, whether the resulting disciplinary dismissal is justified in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) the level of discipline, and (iii) the disciplinary procedure.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: despite the employee having clearly assigned job-related duties, the employee failed to perform them, which in fact caused damage to the company; the misconduct in question falls under the grounds for discipline stipulated in the company’s rules of employment and related regulations; the choice of disciplinary dismissal as the level of discipline cannot readily be regarded as markedly excessive in light of social norms; and there were no procedural defects, in that a properly constituted disciplinary committee was convened and the employee was afforded an opportunity to present explanations.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case could not be viewed as a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority in disciplinary matters, and that it did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to clearly understand in advance what one’s job-related duties are (scope of work, reporting and management responsibilities, duty to prevent damage, etc.), and to be aware that repeated neglect of such duties may ultimately lead to disciplinary dismissal. Where damage has occurred to the company, the employee should整理, as objectively as possible, the circumstances leading to the damage, the employee’s defenses, and any efforts to mitigate or remedy the damage, and actively submit such materials during the explanatory process before the disciplinary committee.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to整理 in advance the reasoning as to (i) which specific grounds for discipline under the rules of employment and personnel regulations the misconduct falls into, and (ii) whether the level of discipline is not excessive in light of internal standards and social norms. In addition, employers should bear in mind that, to avoid an unfair dismissal finding by the Labor Relations Commission, they must faithfully ensure procedural fairness, including the lawful composition of the disciplinary committee, specific notice of the grounds for discipline, and the provision of an opportunity for the employee to present explanations.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee had job-related duties but failed to perform them, thereby causing damage to the company; this constitutes grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: The level of discipline imposed on the employee was deemed appropriate and could not be regarded as deviating from or abusing the employer’s discretionary authority in disciplinary matters.
c. Legality of the disciplinary procedure: A properly constituted disciplinary committee was convened and an opportunity to present explanations was afforded, and therefore the procedure was found to be free from defects.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee had job-related duties but failed to perform them, thereby causing damage to the company; this constitutes grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: The level of discipline imposed on the employee was deemed appropriate and could not be regarded as deviating from or abusing the employer’s discretionary authority in disciplinary matters.
c. Legality of the disciplinary procedure: A properly constituted disciplinary committee was convened and an opportunity to present explanations was afforded, and therefore the procedure was found to be free from defects. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Mandatory Retirement (Early Resignation Notice by General Secretary)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Non-fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (failure to perform job duties causing damage), disciplinary dismissal, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Coerced Voluntary Resignation (Resignation Letter with Salary Conditions),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to disciplinary severity (failure to perform job duties causing damage) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Disciplinary Severity (Failure to Perform Job Duties Causing Damage).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
