[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) in a dispute over “disciplinary dismissal (arbitrary change of working hours and unauthorized opening of a grievance box).” Date of decision: 2026-06-26 · Labor Relations Commission: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해1477 Key issues in summary: A. Whether grounds for discipline existed The employee acknowledged the disciplinary grounds, including leaving the workplace and sleeping while on duty, and arbitrarily changing working and break hours, and the grounds for discipline were also established by CCTV footage and other evidence. B. Whether the level of disciplinary sanction was appropriate The employee, a hospital night-shift nurse, arbitrarily changed her working hours over a long period and left her workplace, leading to patient complaints, yet showed no remorse for her misconduct. Although only partially described here, the decision further discusses the severity of the misconduct... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case arose after a hospital night-shift nurse was dismissed for disciplinary reasons such as leaving her workplace and sleeping during working hours. The nurse filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, and the matter was contested there. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether grounds for discipline existed, whether the level of disciplinary sanction was appropriate, and whether the disciplinary procedures had been observed, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer hospital. This decision once again confirms important practical standards that Labor Law Firm Law& can refer to in practice. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are: (i) whether, in circumstances where a hospital night-shift nurse left her workplace over an extended period, arbitrarily changed her working and break hours, and slept while on duty, the most severe sanction of disciplinary dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal by being manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms; and (ii) whether the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment, such as providing an opportunity to explain before the disciplinary committee, were properly followed. Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case noted that the employee herself admitted to leaving her workplace, sleeping while on duty, and arbitrarily changing her working and break hours, and that her misconduct was also confirmed by objective evidence such as CCTV footage. In light of the nature of her duties as a night-shift nurse, which are directly connected to patient safety and life, she had shown negligent work performance repeatedly over a long period, and even after patient complaints were raised, she showed little remorse. In addition, although not included in the formal grounds for discipline, there was further misconduct in that she forcibly opened the grievance box using tools such as tweezers and removed internal documents without authorization. Given these circumstances, the Commission held that the employer could not but conclude, in light of social norms, that it was no longer possible to continue the employment relationship, and that the level of disciplinary sanction could not be considered excessively severe. It further found that the disciplinary committee had been constituted and operated in accordance with the disciplinary provisions in the rules of employment, that the employee personally attended and was given sufficient opportunity to explain, and that the minimum procedural standards required by Supreme Court precedents regarding notification of disciplinary grounds and opportunity to explain had been satisfied. On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did not constitute an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority and did not amount to unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, especially in positions directly linked to safety and life, such as in medical institutions and night-shift work, neglect of duty, unauthorized absence from the workplace, arbitrary changes to working hours, and sleeping while on duty are not mere issues of poor work attitude; they can constitute serious grounds for discipline that may terminate the employment relationship. Furthermore, where the employee acknowledges the grounds for discipline, it is difficult to have the severity of the sanction deemed excessive based solely on the argument that it was “a one-time mistake.” A lack of remorse or additional misconduct before or after the disciplinary action may work unfavorably for the employee before the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, it is important to clearly specify in the rules of employment concrete grounds for discipline and standards for the level of sanctions, such as neglect of duty, leaving the workplace, sleeping while on duty, and unauthorized removal of documents. When imposing discipline, employers should thoroughly prepare to prove the grounds for discipline by securing sufficient objective materials such as CCTV footage, records of complaints, and work schedules. In addition, convening the disciplinary committee, providing prior notice, and granting an opportunity to explain should all be carried out in accordance with the rules of employment. Documenting that the employee actually appeared and had an opportunity to present explanations will be of great assistance in defending the legitimacy of a disciplinary dismissal at the Labor Relations Commission stage. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that the disciplinary dismissal was justified, on the grounds that the misconduct existed, that it was of such a nature that the employment relationship could not be maintained and the level of sanction could not be considered excessive, and that the company had complied with its rules of employment and other disciplinary regulations. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Whether grounds for discipline existed The employee acknowledged the grounds for discipline, including leaving the workplace and sleeping while on duty and arbitrarily changing working and break hours, and the grounds for discipline were established by CCTV footage and other evidence. b. Whether the level of disciplinary sanction was appropriate The employee, as a hospital night-shift nurse, arbitrarily changed her working hours over a long period and left her workplace, leading to patient complaints, yet showed no remorse for her misconduct. Although not included in the formal grounds for discipline, she also forcibly opened the grievance box using tools such as tweezers and removed suggestion documents stored inside without authorization. Considering these factors comprehensively, the employer, in light of social norms, could not reasonably be expected to continue the employment relationship, and therefore the dismissal cannot be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority. c. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful The disciplinary procedure was conducted in compliance with the rules of employment, and the employee attended the disciplinary committee and had sufficient opportunity to explain. Accordingly, no procedural defect was found. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Sanctions (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanctions (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Legitimate Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal (arbitrary change of working hours · unauthorized opening of grievance box), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, unauthorized absence, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Refusal by Employee Restricted from Site Access to Work at Another Site)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal (arbitrary change of working hours · unauthorized opening of grievance box) can be found under “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Dismissal (Arbitrary Change of Working Hours · Unauthorized Opening of Grievance Box).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article