Corporate trends / Performance record
“Disciplinary Severity (Ethics Violations in Public Institutions)” – Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 603)
- Date2026/08/07 04:10
- Read 11
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (ethics violations in public institutions).”
Decision Body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae545 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-23 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: … given that the rules stipulate that there are no grounds for reduction or exemption of disciplinary action, and that the Corporation is a public institution established under the Local Public Enterprises Act, for which a high level of ethics is required, the disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a conspicuous extent in light of social norms or to constitute an abuse of discretion; therefore, the level of discipline is appropriate.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker employed by a public institution was subjected to disciplinary dismissal and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal. The application was dismissed by the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission comprehensively reviewed the Corporation’s service management regulations, the heightened ethical standards required of public institutions under the Local Public Enterprises Act, the grounds and level of discipline, the procedures followed, and the legality of the written notice of dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether the disciplinary dismissal chosen by the employer in response to the public institution employee’s misconduct had, in terms of disciplinary severity, lost its validity to a conspicuous extent in light of social norms, and whether the employer had duly complied with the disciplinary procedures under the service management regulations and the obligation of written notice of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that the employer had complied with the internal disciplinary procedures, including Article 43(1) of the service management regulations; that the employer had fulfilled its obligation of written notice under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by stating the time and grounds for dismissal in the written notice of disciplinary results; and that, given the particular nature of the Corporation as a public institution established under the Local Public Enterprises Act and related statutes, which requires a high level of ethics, it was difficult to view the disciplinary action as having lost its validity to a conspicuous extent in light of social norms or as constituting an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as exceeding the socially acceptable range of balance between the grounds for discipline and the level of discipline, and that the disciplinary procedures and written notice of dismissal were lawfully carried out. The dismissal 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 in workplaces such as public institutions and public enterprises, where ethics are particularly emphasized, the level of discipline for misconduct may be assessed more strictly than in ordinary private companies. In addition, when the Labor Relations Commission determines the appropriateness of disciplinary severity, it comprehensively considers all misconduct actually relied upon by the employer at the time of discipline, as well as the nature of the institution and the nature of the duties. Therefore, when filing an application for remedy, it is important not merely to assert that “the level of discipline is excessive,” but to systematically organize and submit evidence regarding the degree of one’s misconduct, past work attitude, and remorse and efforts at reform.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, it is advisable to set out, as concretely as possible in the rules of employment and service regulations, the grounds for discipline, standards for the level of discipline, and procedures, and to systematically retain documents such as resolutions on disciplinary action, minutes of meetings, and notices, so as to be able to prove that those regulations were faithfully observed in practice. In particular, even where the level of discipline is somewhat severe, it is important to leave a record showing that the content and repetition of the misconduct, the nature of the duties, the level of trust and ethics required of a public institution, and the need to prevent recurrence were substantively reviewed. Such records will be advantageous when disputing, before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts, whether there has been an abuse of discretion.
This Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission decision illustrates that, in disputes over unfair dismissal, not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the legality of the level of discipline and procedures are contested together, and that the particular nature of public institutions functions as an important factor in assessing the social reasonableness of disciplinary severity. Both employees and employers are advised, in similar cases, to accurately grasp the relevant case law and legal principles with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to carefully organize the facts from the initial stages.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… given that the rules stipulate that there are no grounds for reduction or exemption of disciplinary action, and that the Corporation is a public institution established under the Local Public Enterprises Act, for which a high level of ethics is required, the disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a conspicuous extent in light of social norms or to constitute an abuse of discretion; therefore, the level of discipline is appropriate.
c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer conducted the proceedings in compliance with the procedures set out in Article 43(1) of the service management regulations, and no other defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified; therefore, the disciplinary procedures are lawful.
d. Compliance with Written Notice of Dismissal
The notice of disciplinary results stated the time and grounds for dismissal, and thus the employer complied with the obligation of written notice prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
… given that the rules stipulate that there are no grounds for reduction or exemption of disciplinary action, and that the Corporation is a public institution established under the Local Public Enterprises Act, for which a high level of ethics is required, the disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a conspicuous extent in light of social norms or to constitute an abuse of discretion; therefore, the level of discipline is appropriate.
c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer conducted the proceedings in compliance with the procedures set out in Article 43(1) of the service management regulations, and no other defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified; therefore, the disciplinary procedures are lawful.
d. Compliance with Written Notice of Dismissal
The notice of disciplinary results stated the time and grounds for dismissal, and thus the employer complied with the obligation of written notice prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Other Disciplinary Measures (Exclusion from Seniority-Based Promotion)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (ethics violations in public institutions), disciplinary dismissal, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Other Disciplinary Measures (Exclusion from Seniority-Based Promotion)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (ethics violations in public institutions) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Ethics Violations in Public Institutions).”
※ 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 (ethics violations in public institutions).”
Decision Body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae545 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-23 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: … given that the rules stipulate that there are no grounds for reduction or exemption of disciplinary action, and that the Corporation is a public institution established under the Local Public Enterprises Act, for which a high level of ethics is required, the disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a conspicuous extent in light of social norms or to constitute an abuse of discretion; therefore, the level of discipline is appropriate.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker employed by a public institution was subjected to disciplinary dismissal and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal. The application was dismissed by the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission comprehensively reviewed the Corporation’s service management regulations, the heightened ethical standards required of public institutions under the Local Public Enterprises Act, the grounds and level of discipline, the procedures followed, and the legality of the written notice of dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether the disciplinary dismissal chosen by the employer in response to the public institution employee’s misconduct had, in terms of disciplinary severity, lost its validity to a conspicuous extent in light of social norms, and whether the employer had duly complied with the disciplinary procedures under the service management regulations and the obligation of written notice of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that the employer had complied with the internal disciplinary procedures, including Article 43(1) of the service management regulations; that the employer had fulfilled its obligation of written notice under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by stating the time and grounds for dismissal in the written notice of disciplinary results; and that, given the particular nature of the Corporation as a public institution established under the Local Public Enterprises Act and related statutes, which requires a high level of ethics, it was difficult to view the disciplinary action as having lost its validity to a conspicuous extent in light of social norms or as constituting an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as exceeding the socially acceptable range of balance between the grounds for discipline and the level of discipline, and that the disciplinary procedures and written notice of dismissal were lawfully carried out. The dismissal 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 in workplaces such as public institutions and public enterprises, where ethics are particularly emphasized, the level of discipline for misconduct may be assessed more strictly than in ordinary private companies. In addition, when the Labor Relations Commission determines the appropriateness of disciplinary severity, it comprehensively considers all misconduct actually relied upon by the employer at the time of discipline, as well as the nature of the institution and the nature of the duties. Therefore, when filing an application for remedy, it is important not merely to assert that “the level of discipline is excessive,” but to systematically organize and submit evidence regarding the degree of one’s misconduct, past work attitude, and remorse and efforts at reform.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, it is advisable to set out, as concretely as possible in the rules of employment and service regulations, the grounds for discipline, standards for the level of discipline, and procedures, and to systematically retain documents such as resolutions on disciplinary action, minutes of meetings, and notices, so as to be able to prove that those regulations were faithfully observed in practice. In particular, even where the level of discipline is somewhat severe, it is important to leave a record showing that the content and repetition of the misconduct, the nature of the duties, the level of trust and ethics required of a public institution, and the need to prevent recurrence were substantively reviewed. Such records will be advantageous when disputing, before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts, whether there has been an abuse of discretion.
This Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission decision illustrates that, in disputes over unfair dismissal, not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the legality of the level of discipline and procedures are contested together, and that the particular nature of public institutions functions as an important factor in assessing the social reasonableness of disciplinary severity. Both employees and employers are advised, in similar cases, to accurately grasp the relevant case law and legal principles with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to carefully organize the facts from the initial stages.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… given that the rules stipulate that there are no grounds for reduction or exemption of disciplinary action, and that the Corporation is a public institution established under the Local Public Enterprises Act, for which a high level of ethics is required, the disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a conspicuous extent in light of social norms or to constitute an abuse of discretion; therefore, the level of discipline is appropriate.
c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer conducted the proceedings in compliance with the procedures set out in Article 43(1) of the service management regulations, and no other defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified; therefore, the disciplinary procedures are lawful.
d. Compliance with Written Notice of Dismissal
The notice of disciplinary results stated the time and grounds for dismissal, and thus the employer complied with the obligation of written notice prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
… given that the rules stipulate that there are no grounds for reduction or exemption of disciplinary action, and that the Corporation is a public institution established under the Local Public Enterprises Act, for which a high level of ethics is required, the disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have lost its validity to a conspicuous extent in light of social norms or to constitute an abuse of discretion; therefore, the level of discipline is appropriate.
c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer conducted the proceedings in compliance with the procedures set out in Article 43(1) of the service management regulations, and no other defects in the disciplinary procedures were identified; therefore, the disciplinary procedures are lawful.
d. Compliance with Written Notice of Dismissal
The notice of disciplinary results stated the time and grounds for dismissal, and thus the employer complied with the obligation of written notice prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Other Disciplinary Measures (Exclusion from Seniority-Based Promotion)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (ethics violations in public institutions), disciplinary dismissal, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Other Disciplinary Measures (Exclusion from Seniority-Based Promotion)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (ethics violations in public institutions) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Ethics Violations in Public Institutions).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
