[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (four traffic accidents involving a special transportation vehicle).” Decision date: 2026-09-17 · Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해158 Key issue summary: A. Existence of grounds for discipline The work rules provide that it constitutes grounds for discipline where a driver causes three or more traffic accidents within one year, in which the driver’s own fault ratio is 50% or more, while operating a special transportation vehicle. This provision must be interpreted not by its wording alone, but in a manner consistent with its purpose of preventing repeated accidents and ensuring the safety of transportation-disadvantaged persons. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case concerns a driver of a special transportation vehicle for transportation-disadvantaged persons who caused repeated traffic accidents and was subjected to a reduction in pay as a disciplinary measure, following which the driver filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair reduction in pay. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed whether the conduct fell within the grounds for discipline under the work rules, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the existence of any defects in the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. In this process, Labor Law Firm Law& organized the case around the relevant legal principles. The issue in this case is: “Where a special transportation driver causes four traffic accidents within one year, each attributable 100% to the driver’s own fault, whether a reduction in pay is justified in terms of grounds for discipline, the severity of the disciplinary measure, and the procedure.” Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether the wording in the work rules, “three or more traffic accidents within one year,” should be viewed solely as a numerical criterion, or whether it can be interpreted in line with its purpose of protecting transportation-disadvantaged persons and preventing repeated accidents. Furthermore, in circumstances where four accidents with 100% driver fault occurred within a short period, it was at issue whether a reduction in pay constitutes an excessively severe disciplinary measure by social standards, and whether the somewhat delayed commencement of the disciplinary process amounts to a serious procedural defect. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the purpose of the work rules provision, which stipulates that it constitutes grounds for discipline where a driver causes three or more traffic accidents within one year, in which the driver’s own fault ratio is 50% or more, while operating a special transportation vehicle, lies in preventing repeated accidents and ensuring the safety of transportation-disadvantaged persons. In light of this purpose, the fact that the applicant caused four accidents within the one-year period counted backward from the date of the last accident, each with 100% fault attributed to the applicant, and the fact that one of these accidents resulted in personal injury, the panel held that the grounds for discipline were clear. The disciplinary measure in this case was only a reduction in pay, which is relatively minor, and given that the nature of the work—transporting transportation-disadvantaged persons—requires a high level of duty of care, that accidents were repeatedly caused by carelessness within a short period, and that the purpose of the discipline strongly reflects the public interest of protecting customers’ lives and bodily integrity, the panel determined that the employer’s disciplinary authority had not been abused. With respect to the disciplinary procedure, the panel found that the employee had in fact been given an opportunity to present explanations, that the employee raised no particular objection to the procedure other than that “the procedure was commenced somewhat late,” and that there were no circumstances indicating any serious violation of the work rules or internal procedures in the course of the disciplinary resolution. Accordingly, the panel held that there was no procedural illegality. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees working in special transportation, public transportation, and the transport industry should be aware that “repeated minor accidents,” when accumulated, can fully constitute grounds for discipline and may lead to reduction in pay, suspension, or even dismissal. In particular, in roles directly connected to the lives and safety of transportation-disadvantaged persons and passengers, where the driver’s fault ratio is high and similar types of accidents are repeatedly caused within a short period, the Labor Relations Commission tends to broadly recognize the legitimacy of disciplinary measures. In addition, where an opportunity to present explanations is provided in the disciplinary process, it is necessary not merely to assert that “the discipline is excessive,” but to specifically organize and submit materials on the circumstances of the accidents, efforts to prevent recurrence, and proportionality compared to past disciplinary cases. When asserting the expiration of the disciplinary limitation period or procedural defects, one should bear in mind that relief is difficult to obtain based solely on “delayed commencement,” and that the key question is whether the employee’s right to defense was substantively impaired. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to clearly set out the disciplinary criteria for traffic accidents in the work rules, and, as in this case, to make clear in both the wording and any explanatory notes that the purpose lies in “preventing repeated accidents” and “ensuring the safety of transportation-disadvantaged persons and passengers.” In determining the level of discipline, employers should systematically organize the number of accidents, fault ratios, time period, extent of personal and property damage, and any prior disciplinary record, and apply internal step-by-step standards for reduction in pay, suspension, dismissal, etc., in a consistent manner. In the disciplinary procedure, employers should provide the employee with a sufficient opportunity to present explanations, and document the timing of the commencement and resolution of the disciplinary process to prepare for future assertions such as “procedural delay” or “denial of an opportunity for reconsideration.” To prevent dispositions that are excessively harsh—or, conversely, repeatedly overly lenient—compared to other similar cases, employers should periodically review disciplinary standards and case applications in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the application for relief from unfair reduction in pay was dismissed on the grounds that the employee caused a total of four traffic accidents within the one-year period counted backward from the date of the last accident, each with a 100% fault ratio attributable to the employee, thereby establishing grounds for discipline, and that the level and procedure of the disciplinary measure were also appropriate. 3. Summary of Reasoning A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline Under the work rules, the disciplinary criteria for traffic accidents stipulate that it constitutes grounds for discipline where a driver causes three or more traffic accidents within one year, in which the driver’s own fault ratio is 50% or more, while operating a special transportation vehicle. This provision must be interpreted not by its wording alone, but in a manner consistent with its purpose of preventing repeated accidents and ensuring the safety of transportation-disadvantaged persons. As the applicant caused a total of four traffic accidents within the one-year period counted backward from the date of the last accident, and the applicant’s own fault was recognized as 100% in each accident, grounds for discipline exist. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Given that the purpose of the disciplinary measure in this case is to protect customers’ lives and safety by preventing the recurrence of traffic accidents; that the employee is engaged in transporting transportation-disadvantaged persons and therefore is required to exercise a higher level of duty of care in performing work; that the four accidents were repeatedly caused by carelessness within a short period; that one of the accidents resulted in personal injury; and that the employee’s fault ratio was 100% in all four accidents, it cannot be viewed that there was any abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority. c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure In the disciplinary procedure, the employee was given an opportunity to present explanations, and the employee stated that, apart from the fact that the disciplinary procedure was commenced somewhat late, there were no particular objections to the procedure. Accordingly, no illegality in the disciplinary procedure has been identified. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Interest in Relief · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (four traffic accidents involving a special transportation vehicle), violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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 Decision Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Overcharging Language Institute Tuition Fees)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (four traffic accidents involving a special transportation vehicle) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Four Traffic Accidents Involving a Special Transportation Vehicle).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article