This case on the issue of “re-disciplinary action and disciplinary severity (informal speech to a superior and prior reprimand)” ended with a decision in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application). [Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “re-disciplinary action and disciplinary severity (informal speech to a superior and prior reprimand).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae1713 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-07 · Case result: Application dismissed Key issue summary: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer initially imposed a severe disciplinary measure, including dismissal, on the employee. The Labor Relations Commission then found the dismissal to be unfair on the ground that the level of discipline was excessive. The employer, accepting this, cancelled the original disciplinary action and imposed a new, mitigated disciplinary sanction of one month’s suspension from duty, which again led to a dispute. In the application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, the Commission focused on (i) whether the grounds for discipline existed, (ii) whether the re-disciplinary action was lawful, and (iii) whether the mitigated disciplinary severity (one month’s suspension) was appropriate. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case were: when an employer cancels the original disciplinary action and then imposes re-disciplinary action on the same or similar grounds, (i) whether this constitutes unfair dismissal as a violation of the principle of ne bis in idem (prohibition of double jeopardy in disciplinary matters) or the principle of good faith, and (ii) whether a one-month suspension is an appropriate level of discipline under social norms. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case held that the mere fact that the employer cancelled the original disciplinary disposition and imposed re-disciplinary action, and that the grounds for the re-disciplinary action were largely the same as those for the original discipline, does not automatically mean that the re-disciplinary action violates the principle of ne bis in idem or the principle of good faith. The employee failed to submit any new objective evidence capable of overturning the grounds for discipline that had already been acknowledged in the previous case. The employee had a prior record of being reprimanded for using informal speech (banmal) toward a superior, and even thereafter showed no attitude of remorse, such as acknowledging his/her wrongdoing. The employer, for its part, accepted the earlier unfair dismissal decision and mitigated the level of discipline to a one-month suspension. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should bear in mind that statements made and facts acknowledged before the Labor Relations Commission in an earlier case will serve as important reference points in any subsequent re-disciplinary proceedings. If an employee completely denies the grounds for discipline but fails to present objective evidence sufficient to overturn them, both the existence of the grounds for discipline and the level of disciplinary severity may be found against the employee. Accordingly, employees should calmly整理 the facts and, where necessary, respond with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when an unfair dismissal decision has been rendered, it is important not to insist on maintaining the original disciplinary action as is. Instead, the employer should reflect the purport of the decision by reasonably mitigating the level of discipline and carefully following a re-disciplinary process that re-examines the grounds, procedures, and severity of the discipline. In imposing re-disciplinary action, the employer should comprehensively consider the disciplinary standards in the rules of employment, the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, any prior disciplinary history, and whether the employee has shown remorse, and set the level of discipline at a point that is not markedly excessive under social norms. In doing so, the employer should thoroughly review the relevant case law of the Labor Relations Commission and the courts. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Whether grounds for discipline existed The mere fact that, in cancelling the original disciplinary disposition and imposing re-disciplinary action, the grounds for the re-disciplinary action were largely the same as those for the original discipline does not mean that the re-disciplinary action violates the principle of ne bis in idem or the principle of good faith. As the employee failed to present any objective evidence capable of rejecting the grounds for discipline that had been acknowledged in the previous decision, all of the grounds for discipline were recognized. (b) Whether the level of discipline was appropriate The employee showed no remorse, such as by acknowledging the grounds for discipline, and had already been reprimanded in the past for reasons including the use of informal speech (banmal) toward a superior. The employer accepted the earlier decision that the level of discipline was excessive and unfair and mitigated the discipline to a one-month suspension from duty… 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings (a) Whether grounds for discipline existed The mere fact that, in cancelling the original disciplinary disposition and imposing re-disciplinary action, the grounds for the re-disciplinary action were largely the same as those for the original discipline does not mean that the re-disciplinary action violates the principle of ne bis in idem or the principle of good faith. As the employee failed to present any objective evidence capable of rejecting the grounds for discipline that had been acknowledged in the previous decision, all of the grounds for discipline were recognized. (b) Whether the level of discipline was appropriate The employee showed no remorse, such as by acknowledging the grounds for discipline, and had already been reprimanded in the past for reasons including the use of informal speech (banmal) toward a superior. The employer accepted the earlier decision that the level of discipline was excessive and unfair and mitigated the discipline to a one-month suspension from duty… / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Original decision upheld - “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Application dismissed - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, re-disciplinary action and disciplinary severity (informal speech to superior and prior reprimand), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Voluntary Discontinuation of Participation (Intellectual Disability – General Employment Position)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to re-disciplinary action and disciplinary severity (informal speech to superior and prior reprimand) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Re-Disciplinary Action and Disciplinary Severity (Informal Speech to Superior and Prior Reprimand).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article