[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “domination/interference (transportation division head encouraging union membership).” Decision date: 2026-07-28 · Decision body: Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae204 Key issue summary: A. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee, as head of the transportation division, held a de facto employer status and encouraged employees to join a particular union. This conduct is highly likely to constitute an unfair labor practice of domination/interference under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. In particular, given that the matter was reported in the media and that the employer was the subject of a summary order request by investigative authorities, it constitutes a valid ground for discipline. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an employee working as head of the transportation division in a multiple-union workplace who was suspended from duty for one month for encouraging employees to join a specific labor union. The employee filed a relief application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the suspension was an unfair personnel measure equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission found in favor of the employer, recognizing the existence of grounds for discipline, compliance with the limitation period for discipline, and the lawfulness of the level of discipline and the disciplinary procedure. In unfair dismissal disputes, the legitimacy of disciplinary action is examined very strictly. This decision of the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission can be viewed as an important precedent indicating the extent to which disciplinary measures against conduct suggestive of domination/interference are permissible in multiple-union workplaces. It is also a useful reference for similar advisory matters handled by Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is: “In a multiple-union workplace, where a manager with de facto employer status encourages employees to join a particular labor union, is a one‑month suspension lawful in terms of grounds for discipline, limitation period, level of discipline, and procedure?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel held that the employee, as head of the transportation division, occupied a de facto employer position and that his act of encouraging membership in a particular union was highly likely to constitute an unfair labor practice of domination/interference under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. The facts were reported in the media, and a summary order was requested by investigative authorities against the employer. Under the personnel regulations, the limitation period for discipline begins to run from the date of notification of the end of the investigation, and a request for a disciplinary resolution was made within one month of that date, so the limitation period had not expired. As to the level of discipline, it falls within the employer’s discretion; the employee’s misconduct had a serious adverse impact on organizational credibility, and, considering prior warnings not formally recorded and other circumstances, a one‑month suspension was not excessive compared to similar cases. The disciplinary procedure was also conducted in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the employee was given sufficient opportunity to present his explanation. Although this case did not involve dismissal, the Commission held that the one‑month suspension was justified in terms of grounds, limitation period, level of discipline, and procedure, and therefore could not be regarded as unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Where an employee holds a de facto employer position, such as manager or department head, encouraging or urging employees to join a particular labor union can be evaluated as going beyond mere expression of opinion and amounting to an unfair labor practice of domination/interference. In multiple-union workplaces, statements or conduct to the effect of “join this union” or “this union is more advantageous” can lead to disciplinary action. Expressions relating to union choice should therefore be kept as neutral as possible. Where criminal proceedings are conducted in parallel, the limitation period for discipline may, under company personnel regulations, begin to run from the “date of notification of the end of the investigation” or similar, so that disciplinary action may still be possible even after a considerable time has passed. It is advisable to organize the facts and establish a defense strategy together with a labor attorney or lawyer from the early stages of the case. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, in a multiple-union environment, it is necessary to provide repeated training to managers so that their statements and conduct are not interpreted as domination or interference with a particular union, and to emphasize the “freedom of union choice” and the prohibition of unfair labor practices. When imposing discipline, the limitation period provisions in the rules of employment and personnel regulations must be reviewed carefully, and the starting point (such as the date of notification of the end of the investigation) and the date of the request for a disciplinary resolution should be clearly recorded to prevent disputes over the limitation period. In determining the level of discipline, a rational standard should be established by comprehensively considering the social impact of the misconduct, the degree of damage to organizational credibility, past disciplinary or warning records, and the timing and relevance of commendations or contributions. In the disciplinary procedure, procedural fairness should be ensured by properly constituting the disciplinary committee and providing opportunities for attendance and explanation, thereby enhancing the employer’s ability to defend the measure at the Labor Relations Commission stage. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which a one‑month suspension imposed for encouraging membership in a particular labor union in a multiple-union workplace was held to be lawful. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee, as head of the transportation division, held a de facto employer status and encouraged employees to join a particular union. This conduct is highly likely to constitute an unfair labor practice of domination/interference under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and, particularly in light of the fact that it was reported in the media and that a summary order was requested by investigative authorities against the employer, it constitutes grounds for discipline. In addition, under Article 64(2) of the personnel regulations, the limitation period for discipline did not expire because a request for a disciplinary resolution was made within one month from the date of notification of the end of the investigation. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline The level of discipline falls within the employer’s discretion. The employee’s misconduct had a significant impact on organizational credibility, and various circumstances, including prior warnings not formally recorded, were comprehensively considered. Most of the commendations in the employee’s record predated his joining the company and therefore could not be regarded as grounds for mitigation. A one‑month suspension is appropriate compared with similar cases. c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure The employer conducted the disciplinary procedure in accordance with the relevant regulations and afforded the employee an opportunity to present his explanation; therefore, the procedure cannot be considered unlawful. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Excessive Level of Discipline (Negligent Management/Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Level of Discipline (Participation in Outsourced Work for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, domination/interference (transportation division head encouraging union membership), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy/failure to comply with work orders, others, 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&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Limitation of Legal Application (Fewer Than Five Employees)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to domination/interference (transportation division head encouraging union membership) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on Domination/Interference (Transportation Division Head Encouraging Union Membership).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article