1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case concerns a worker who was dismissed for cause on disciplinary grounds on the basis that the worker had engaged in misconduct amounting to attempted extortion against the employer. The worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal. The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline (disciplinary severity), and (iii) whether there were any procedural violations in the disciplinary process, and ultimately dismissed the worker’s application. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, where a worker’s misconduct amounts to attempted extortion and fundamentally destroys the relationship of trust with the employer, the most severe form of discipline—dismissal—is justified, and whether the disciplinary procedures complied lawfully with the requirements of the Labor Standards Act and the company’s rules of employment. Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that the worker’s conduct fundamentally destroyed the duty of good faith and the mutual trust relationship that form the basis of the employment relationship, and that the conduct constituted serious misconduct amounting to the criminal offense of attempted extortion. Given that, at this level of misconduct, it would be difficult under social norms to continue the employment relationship, the dismissal in this case was held to be based on valid grounds for discipline, and the level of discipline (dismissal) could not be viewed as markedly excessive under social norms and was therefore justified. Furthermore, the employer had notified the worker in writing of the specific grounds for discipline and dismissal before and after convening the disciplinary committee, and had notified the worker of the committee date and granted an opportunity to present explanations approximately 10 days in advance. Taking these factors together, the panel held that there were no material defects in the disciplinary procedures. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) If, in the course of demanding money or other benefits from an employer, a worker’s words or actions rise to the level of threats or coercion such that they can be evaluated as criminally unlawful conduct such as attempted extortion, both the Labor Relations Commission and the courts are likely to readily recognize the justification of disciplinary dismissal on the ground of destruction of the relationship of trust. In particular, regardless of whether criminal punishment is actually imposed, if the company convenes a disciplinary committee, provides written notice of the grounds, and grants an opportunity to explain, it will be difficult to challenge the procedures as defective. Accordingly, even in the midst of disputes, workers must take special care to control the level of their expressions and behavior. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when misconduct occurs, it is important to carefully organize the facts as to whether the conduct falls under grounds for disciplinary dismissal under the rules of employment or collective agreement, and whether, under social norms, the employment relationship has become untenable. If, prior to convening the disciplinary committee, the employer provides written notice of the specific grounds for discipline, and grants sufficient time and opportunity for the worker to appear and present explanations, the likelihood increases that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the justification of both the level of discipline and the procedures followed. This decision of the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission is a useful example illustrating the criteria for assessing the justification of disciplinary severity in unfair dismissal disputes and the importance of complying with disciplinary procedures. To prepare for similar cases, both workers and employers should accurately understand in advance the “duty of good faith” and the rules governing disciplinary procedures, and establish appropriate response strategies. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History … It was determined that the conduct constituted a reason attributable to the worker and was therefore recognized as a ground for discipline. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline The worker’s misconduct fundamentally destroyed the “duty of good faith” and the “mutual trust relationship” that form the basis of the employment relationship, and further constituted serious misconduct amounting to a criminally unlawful act (attempted extortion). Accordingly, the level of discipline—dismissal—was found to be appropriate. c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures The employer notified the worker in writing of the specific grounds for discipline and dismissal, respectively, before and after convening the disciplinary committee, and notified the worker of the date of appearance and granted an opportunity to explain approximately 10 days before the committee was held. It was therefore determined that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures… 3. Summary of the Decision a. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision … It was determined that the conduct constituted a reason attributable to the worker and was therefore recognized as a ground for discipline. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline The worker’s misconduct fundamentally destroyed the “duty of good faith” and the “mutual trust relationship” that form the basis of the employment relationship, and further constituted serious misconduct amounting to a criminally unlawful act (attempted extortion). Accordingly, the level of discipline—dismissal—was found to be appropriate. c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures The employer notified the worker in writing of the specific grounds for discipline and dismissal, respectively, before and after convening the disciplinary committee, and notified the worker of the date of appearance and granted an opportunity to explain approximately 10 days before the committee was held. It was therefore determined that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures… / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (attempted extortion misconduct), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Misconduct),” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to disciplinary severity (attempted extortion misconduct) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Disciplinary Severity (Attempted Extortion Misconduct).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article