[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “justifiability of disciplinary dismissal (discourtesy to customers · conflict with colleagues).” Decision date: 2026-09-11 · Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해711 Key issue summary: A. Justifiability of the grounds for dismissal The employee’s conduct of “discourtesy to customers” and “conflict with fellow employees” falls under the grounds set forth in Article 9(4)6 of the employment contract. 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case concerns an application for remedy against disciplinary dismissal heard by the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which the Commission ruled in favor of the employer and recognized the justifiability of the dismissal. In particular, the employee’s discourteous response to customers and repeated conflicts with colleagues were accepted as grounds for dismissal. Moreover, despite some controversy over the manner in which the written notice of dismissal was delivered, the Commission found no procedural defect. In this respect, the decision is a meaningful precedent for practical work at Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee, who worked in the service industry, was dismissed on the grounds that he/she had responded discourteously to customers and had repeatedly been in conflict with fellow employees. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, arguing that the grounds for dismissal had been exaggerated and distorted, that the level of discipline was excessive, and that there were defects in the process of delivering the written notice of dismissal, such that the dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case are whether, where discourtesy to customers and conflicts with colleagues have been repeated, the employer’s choice of dismissal—the most severe disciplinary measure—constitutes an abuse of discretion, and whether, in circumstances where the manner of delivering the written notice of dismissal is disputed, it can be deemed that the written notice of the grounds and timing of dismissal required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act was lawfully given. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employee’s conduct of “discourtesy to customers” and “conflict with fellow employees,” which falls under the grounds for dismissal stipulated in Article 9(4)6 of the employment contract, actually occurred; that, given the nature of the company’s business, such misconduct has a significant impact on customer service and the organizational atmosphere; that the misconduct was not a one-off incident but occurred repeatedly; and that it is difficult to regard the employer’s choice of dismissal on this basis as an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case constituted a justified disciplinary dismissal based on a degree of fault that, under social norms, makes it difficult to continue the employment relationship. In addition, although there was a dispute between the parties as to whether the employee took a photograph of the dismissal notice, even leaving that aside, it was confirmed that the employee signed the dismissal notice delivered by the employer, and the grounds and timing of dismissal were specified in writing such that the employee sufficiently understood the reasons and timing of the dismissal and suffered no hindrance in preparing a response. In light of the legislative purpose of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act (to induce employers to make dismissal decisions prudently, to clarify the grounds and timing of dismissal in the event of a dispute, and to guarantee the employee’s right of defense), the Commission found it difficult to recognize any procedural violation. On this basis, the Commission held that there were no serious defects in the employer’s dismissal procedure and that the dismissal in this case was not an unfair dismissal but a justified dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that in industries such as the service sector, where customer service and interpersonal relations are central, “discourtesy” and “repeated conflicts with colleagues” may be evaluated not merely as grounds for caution or warning, but as grounds for dismissal. In addition, if you sign a dismissal notice, that document may be recognized as a valid written notice of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, before signing, you should carefully check its contents (grounds for dismissal, timing of dismissal, and regulatory basis), and if you disagree, it is advisable to record your objections at the time of signing or to submit a separate written objection. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, if you intend to treat conduct such as discourtesy to customers and conflicts between colleagues as grounds for discipline or dismissal, it is important to clearly provide for such grounds in the employment contract or rules of employment, and to accumulate objective evidence of the specific facts (when, where, to whom, and what words or actions occurred). In addition, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, you must notify the grounds and timing of dismissal in writing, stating them with sufficient specificity for the employee to understand the contents and prepare for any future dispute, and you should clearly record the fact of delivery and whether the employee signed, so that procedural fairness is more readily recognized by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. To prevail in this type of case, employers should familiarize themselves in advance with the legal principles relating to Articles 23 and 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and develop practical capabilities to systematically organize and manage evidence that can prove the content, degree, and repetition of the misconduct that occurred in the workplace, the characteristics of the company’s business, and the proportionality of the level of discipline. 2. Matters Decided A. Case overview and procedural history A case in which it was held that grounds for dismissal existed, there were no circumstances indicating that the employer abused its discretion, and there were no defects in the dismissal procedure, so that the dismissal was justified. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Justifiability of the grounds for dismissal The employee’s conduct of “discourtesy to customers” and “conflict with fellow employees” falls under the grounds stipulated in Article 9(4)6 of the employment contract. In light of the nature of the company’s business, the employee’s repeated misconduct constitutes justifiable grounds for dismissal, and it cannot be said that the employer abused its discretion. B. Legality of the dismissal procedure Although there is disagreement between the parties as to whether the dismissal notice was photographed, even leaving that aside, it is confirmed that the employee signed the dismissal notice delivered by the employer, and, given the legislative purpose of the requirement for written notice of dismissal and the fact that the employee suffered no hindrance in responding to the dismissal thereafter, it is difficult to find that the employer violated the dismissal procedure. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management/Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Interest in Remedy · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, justifiability of disciplinary dismissal (discourtesy to customers · conflict with colleagues), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Employee Headcount Requirement (Registration of Employer’s Family)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to justifiability of disciplinary dismissal (discourtesy to customers · conflict with colleagues) can be found under “List of Decisions on Justifiability of Disciplinary Dismissal (Discourtesy to Customers · Conflict with Colleagues).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article