[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “appropriateness of disciplinary sanctions (refusal to submit a written explanation and poor attendance).” Decision date: 2026-07-28 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae947 Key issues in summary: A. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee’s poor attendance, refusal without just cause to submit a written explanation, and inappropriate remarks and behavior toward a superior were all recognized as grounds for discipline. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline Although the employer had explained that no separate disciplinary action would be taken if the employee submitted a written explanation, the employee failed to comply with that instruction and did not improve his work attitude. In light of this, the suspension imposed to maintain order in a small workplace was not considered excessive… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an application for relief from unfair dismissal filed with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, challenging a suspension imposed in a small workplace on the grounds of the employee’s poor attendance, refusal without just cause to submit a written explanation, and inappropriate remarks and behavior toward a superior. The employee argued that the grounds for discipline were minor, that the level of discipline was excessive, and that, because there were no disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment, the discipline was also procedurally unfair. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the suspension was an unavoidable and justified disciplinary measure necessary to maintain order in a small workplace. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is: “In circumstances involving poor attendance, non‑compliance with a lawful work instruction (submission of a written explanation), and inappropriate remarks and behavior toward a superior, whether a suspension imposed in a workplace with fewer than 10 employees that has no disciplinary procedure provisions in its rules of employment is justified in terms of (i) existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) procedural fairness.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the employee had repeatedly exhibited poor attendance; that, even though the employer had gone so far as to inform the employee that no separate disciplinary action would be taken if he submitted a written explanation, the employee failed to comply and did not improve his attitude; and that it was confirmed that the employee had made inappropriate remarks and engaged in improper behavior toward his superior. In light of these facts, the panel held that the employee’s conduct constituted a violation of a lawful work instruction and an act disrupting workplace order, and therefore amounted to grounds for discipline. The panel further noted that a suspension is not the most severe form of discipline that terminates the employment relationship, such as dismissal; that in a small workplace, the work attitude and behavior of a single employee can have a significant impact on the overall workplace order; and that, despite being given an opportunity to avoid discipline by submitting a written explanation, the employee refused to do so. Taking these factors into account, the panel found that the suspension could not be regarded as a sanction that was manifestly excessive by social standards. In addition, although this workplace, with fewer than 10 employees, was not subject to the statutory obligation under the Labor Standards Act to prepare rules of employment and therefore had no provisions on disciplinary procedures, the employer had given the employee a prior opportunity to explain, and had notified him in writing of the grounds for discipline and the period of suspension. Considering these circumstances as a whole, the panel found no serious defect in procedural fairness. Ultimately, the Labor Relations Commission held that the grounds for discipline were established, that the level of discipline could not be regarded as manifestly unreasonable by social standards, and that there were no procedural defects. Accordingly, the suspension was found to be justified and did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that attendance management and one’s remarks and behavior toward superiors are not merely matters of “personal feelings,” but significant HR and labor‑management issues that can lead to discipline. In particular, where the employer has provided opportunities for improvement—such as requesting a written explanation or offering a chance to clarify the situation—unilaterally refusing such opportunities increases the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will uphold the legitimacy of the disciplinary action. It is also necessary to remember that, even in a small workplace, if the employer has given a certain opportunity to explain and has notified the grounds and period of discipline in writing, it will not be easy to assert procedural defects solely on the basis that rules of employment do not exist. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to record, in a concrete manner by date and content, the facts constituting grounds for discipline, such as poor attendance, violation of work orders, and insulting or abusive language toward superiors. It is also important to provide opportunities for improvement through step‑by‑step measures such as warnings and requests for written explanations. With respect to the level of discipline, employers should, in line with the standards required by Supreme Court precedents, comprehensively consider the nature and degree of the misconduct, the size of the workplace, and the impact on workplace order, and set the level of sanctions such as suspension or pay cuts so that they are not evaluated as manifestly harsh by social standards. Furthermore, even if a workplace with fewer than 10 employees is not legally required to prepare rules of employment, if the employer establishes at least minimal internal standards for disciplinary procedures (such as providing an opportunity to explain and using written notification) and faithfully follows them in actual cases, the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the procedural legitimacy of the discipline will increase. Labor Law Firm Law& comprehensively reviews proof of grounds for discipline, appropriateness of the level of sanctions, and compliance with procedures in unfair dismissal and disciplinary cases, and works together with both employees and employers to develop practically useful response strategies. 2. Decision A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that the grounds for discipline were established, the level of discipline was appropriate, and there were no procedural defects, and therefore found the discipline to be justified. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee’s poor attendance, refusal without just cause to submit a written explanation, and inappropriate remarks and behavior toward a superior were recognized as grounds for discipline. b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline Although the employer had explained that no separate disciplinary action would be taken if the employee submitted a written explanation, the employee failed to comply with that instruction and did not improve his work attitude. In light of this, the panel determined that the suspension imposed to maintain order in a small workplace was not excessive. c. Legality of the disciplinary procedure Although this was a workplace with fewer than 10 employees, which is not subject to the obligation under the Labor Standards Act to prepare rules of employment, and there were no provisions on disciplinary procedures, the employer had given the employee an opportunity to explain and had notified him in writing of the grounds and period of discipline. Therefore, there was no procedural defect. [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanctions (Negligent Management and Supervision)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanctions (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Expectation of Continued Employment (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, appropriateness of disciplinary sanctions (refusal to submit written explanation · poor attendance), violation of company policy · non‑compliance with work instructions, 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, “‘Failure to Meet Probation Evaluation (Extension of Probationary Period by 3 Months)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to appropriateness of disciplinary sanctions (refusal to submit written explanation · poor attendance) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions on Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanctions (Refusal to Submit Written Explanation · Poor Attendance).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article