Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Scope of Union Activities (Cancellation of Animal Rights Policy Event)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 600)
- Date2026/08/06 04:16
- Read 9
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was concluded with the first-instance ruling being upheld, concerning the issue of the “scope of union activities (cancellation of an animal rights policy event).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9530 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
Key issue summary: a.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee who was the branch chair of the labor union intervened in the company’s external activities by causing the cancellation of a policy proposal event between an animal rights protection organization and an election campaign committee. The employee was disciplined for this conduct and then applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, including against the subsequent personnel measures. The Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the first-instance ruling and examined the overall legitimacy of the personnel measures, including the disciplinary pay cut and the dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are: “(i) whether the branch chair’s act of obstructing the employer’s external cooperation project constitutes legitimate union activity for the maintenance and improvement of working conditions, and (ii) whether the pay cut and subsequent personnel measures imposed on that basis amount to unfair dismissal or unfair discipline due to an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary discretion.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the act of causing the cancellation of the policy proposal event between the animal rights protection organization and the election campaign committee could not readily be regarded as activity directly aimed at maintaining or improving employees’ working conditions such as wages and working hours, or at enhancing employees’ economic and social status. Even assuming it was part of union activity, there exists a duty of good faith under the employment contract to consider the employer’s interests. The employee’s conduct directly undermined the achievement of the company’s objectives in a manner that clearly contravened this duty. The Commission further noted that a pay cut is a relatively light disciplinary measure compared to dismissal or suspension, and thus it is difficult to view it as manifestly unreasonable by social standards. It also found no serious procedural defects such as violations of the work rules or disciplinary procedures. Taking all of these factors together, the Commission held that both the grounds for discipline and the level of sanction were justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if an employee serves as a union officer, not all external or political activities are automatically evaluated as “legitimate union activities” protected under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. In particular, acts that intentionally cause the employer’s external cooperation projects or policy events to be cancelled may constitute grounds for discipline, even if carried out under the banner of union activity, because they can be evaluated as seriously infringing the contractual duty of good faith and the duty to consider the employer’s interests.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even where the conduct in question is that of a union officer, you should clearly organize and document whether the purpose of the conduct is directly related to the maintenance and improvement of working conditions, and to what extent it runs counter to the achievement of the company’s legitimate business objectives, before proceeding with discipline. In addition, when determining the level of discipline—such as pay cut, suspension, or dismissal—you should comprehensively consider the motive, circumstances, and impact of the misconduct so that the sanction is not excessive by social standards. It is also necessary to strictly comply with the disciplinary committee composition and resolution procedures set out in the work rules and collective agreement, so as to avoid a finding of unfair dismissal or unfair discipline due to procedural defects.
This decision once again confirms in practice that both the “purpose” and the “means” of union activity must be legitimate in order to fall within the scope of protection of the three basic labor rights, that union activities which seriously harm the employer’s interests may constitute grounds for discipline, and that with respect to light disciplinary measures such as pay cuts, findings of abuse of disciplinary discretion are recognized only in a very limited and strict manner.
(© Labor Consultant Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Legitimacy of the Discipline
The conduct of the employee (branch chair) in causing the cancellation of the policy proposal event between the animal rights protection organization and the election campaign committee is difficult to regard as having the purpose of maintaining or improving employees’ working conditions or enhancing employees’ economic or social status. Even assuming it was part of union activity, there exists a duty of good faith under the employment contract to consider the employer’s interests, and such conduct, which runs counter to the achievement of the employer’s objectives, cannot be justified. Accordingly, it constitutes grounds for discipline. A pay cut is a light disciplinary measure, and thus it cannot be viewed as a deviation or abuse of disciplinary discretion, and as no procedural defects under the work rules can be identified, the disciplinary pay cut …
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Legitimacy of the Discipline
The conduct of the employee (branch chair) in causing the cancellation of the policy proposal event between the animal rights protection organization and the election campaign committee is difficult to regard as having the purpose of maintaining or improving employees’ working conditions or enhancing employees’ economic or social status. Even assuming it was part of union activity, there exists a duty of good faith under the employment contract to consider the employer’s interests, and such conduct, which runs counter to the achievement of the employer’s objectives, cannot be justified. Accordingly, it constitutes grounds for discipline. A pay cut is a light disciplinary measure, and thus it cannot be viewed as a deviation or abuse of disciplinary discretion, and as no procedural defects under the work rules can be identified, the disciplinary pay cut … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, scope of union activities (cancellation of animal rights policy event), 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, “‘Standing to Sue (Construction Day Labor Platform)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the scope of union activities (cancellation of animal rights policy event) can be viewed together on the “Scope of Union Activities (Cancellation of Animal Rights Policy Event) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was concluded with the first-instance ruling being upheld, concerning the issue of the “scope of union activities (cancellation of an animal rights policy event).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9530 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
Key issue summary: a.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee who was the branch chair of the labor union intervened in the company’s external activities by causing the cancellation of a policy proposal event between an animal rights protection organization and an election campaign committee. The employee was disciplined for this conduct and then applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, including against the subsequent personnel measures. The Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the first-instance ruling and examined the overall legitimacy of the personnel measures, including the disciplinary pay cut and the dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are: “(i) whether the branch chair’s act of obstructing the employer’s external cooperation project constitutes legitimate union activity for the maintenance and improvement of working conditions, and (ii) whether the pay cut and subsequent personnel measures imposed on that basis amount to unfair dismissal or unfair discipline due to an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary discretion.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the act of causing the cancellation of the policy proposal event between the animal rights protection organization and the election campaign committee could not readily be regarded as activity directly aimed at maintaining or improving employees’ working conditions such as wages and working hours, or at enhancing employees’ economic and social status. Even assuming it was part of union activity, there exists a duty of good faith under the employment contract to consider the employer’s interests. The employee’s conduct directly undermined the achievement of the company’s objectives in a manner that clearly contravened this duty. The Commission further noted that a pay cut is a relatively light disciplinary measure compared to dismissal or suspension, and thus it is difficult to view it as manifestly unreasonable by social standards. It also found no serious procedural defects such as violations of the work rules or disciplinary procedures. Taking all of these factors together, the Commission held that both the grounds for discipline and the level of sanction were justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if an employee serves as a union officer, not all external or political activities are automatically evaluated as “legitimate union activities” protected under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. In particular, acts that intentionally cause the employer’s external cooperation projects or policy events to be cancelled may constitute grounds for discipline, even if carried out under the banner of union activity, because they can be evaluated as seriously infringing the contractual duty of good faith and the duty to consider the employer’s interests.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even where the conduct in question is that of a union officer, you should clearly organize and document whether the purpose of the conduct is directly related to the maintenance and improvement of working conditions, and to what extent it runs counter to the achievement of the company’s legitimate business objectives, before proceeding with discipline. In addition, when determining the level of discipline—such as pay cut, suspension, or dismissal—you should comprehensively consider the motive, circumstances, and impact of the misconduct so that the sanction is not excessive by social standards. It is also necessary to strictly comply with the disciplinary committee composition and resolution procedures set out in the work rules and collective agreement, so as to avoid a finding of unfair dismissal or unfair discipline due to procedural defects.
This decision once again confirms in practice that both the “purpose” and the “means” of union activity must be legitimate in order to fall within the scope of protection of the three basic labor rights, that union activities which seriously harm the employer’s interests may constitute grounds for discipline, and that with respect to light disciplinary measures such as pay cuts, findings of abuse of disciplinary discretion are recognized only in a very limited and strict manner.
(© Labor Consultant Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Legitimacy of the Discipline
The conduct of the employee (branch chair) in causing the cancellation of the policy proposal event between the animal rights protection organization and the election campaign committee is difficult to regard as having the purpose of maintaining or improving employees’ working conditions or enhancing employees’ economic or social status. Even assuming it was part of union activity, there exists a duty of good faith under the employment contract to consider the employer’s interests, and such conduct, which runs counter to the achievement of the employer’s objectives, cannot be justified. Accordingly, it constitutes grounds for discipline. A pay cut is a light disciplinary measure, and thus it cannot be viewed as a deviation or abuse of disciplinary discretion, and as no procedural defects under the work rules can be identified, the disciplinary pay cut …
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Legitimacy of the Discipline
The conduct of the employee (branch chair) in causing the cancellation of the policy proposal event between the animal rights protection organization and the election campaign committee is difficult to regard as having the purpose of maintaining or improving employees’ working conditions or enhancing employees’ economic or social status. Even assuming it was part of union activity, there exists a duty of good faith under the employment contract to consider the employer’s interests, and such conduct, which runs counter to the achievement of the employer’s objectives, cannot be justified. Accordingly, it constitutes grounds for discipline. A pay cut is a light disciplinary measure, and thus it cannot be viewed as a deviation or abuse of disciplinary discretion, and as no procedural defects under the work rules can be identified, the disciplinary pay cut … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, scope of union activities (cancellation of animal rights policy event), 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, “‘Standing to Sue (Construction Day Labor Platform)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the scope of union activities (cancellation of animal rights policy event) can be viewed together on the “Scope of Union Activities (Cancellation of Animal Rights Policy Event) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
