[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “unauthorized absence and early closure of business (long-term and repeated).” Decision date: 2026-09-09 · Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae3577 Summary of key issues: A. Whether grounds for discipline existed The employee’s conduct of being absent from work and leaving work early without prior approval from the employer, closing the business early without authorization, and sending multiple text messages containing inappropriate remarks to the representative was recognized as constituting disciplinary grounds attributable to the employee. However, remarks allegedly made about the dismissal of a co-worker were not recognized as disciplinary grounds because the underlying facts could not be objectively verified. B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate ① ... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns a team leader–level employee who was dismissed for long-term unauthorized absence, unauthorized early departure from work, early closure of the business, and inappropriate text messages sent to the company representative. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission recognized some of the alleged disciplinary grounds but excluded the “dismissal remarks” about a co-worker from the grounds for discipline on the basis that the relevant facts could not be objectively verified, while ultimately upholding the legitimacy of the dismissal. In this unfair dismissal remedy case, the Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the existence of disciplinary grounds, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the legality of the disciplinary procedures. As a result, it ruled in favor of the employer. This decision is a useful reference in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether the disciplinary dismissal of a team leader–level employee who committed long-term unauthorized absence and repeated misconduct constitutes a socially acceptable and justified dismissal, even where some of the alleged disciplinary grounds are not upheld, and whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedures. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning Among the various disciplinary grounds asserted by the employer, the panel recognized as disciplinary grounds attributable to the employee the unauthorized absence, unauthorized early departure, early closure of the business, and the sending of inappropriate text messages to the representative. By contrast, it held that the alleged remarks about the dismissal of a co-worker could not be used as disciplinary grounds because the underlying facts could not be objectively confirmed. Nevertheless, given that the long-term and repeated unauthorized absences and violations of company rules had already damaged the relationship of trust between the employer and the employee, the panel found that the employee’s conduct constituted a serious breach of the duty to provide labor, which is fundamental to the employment relationship, such that it was, in light of social norms, difficult to continue the employment relationship. It further noted that, given the employee’s position as a team leader, the negative impact on organizational order and the work atmosphere in a small-scale workplace was significant, and that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures since the employee personally attended the disciplinary committee and presented explanations. On this basis, the panel held that the dismissal in this case could not readily be regarded as an unlawful or unjust disposition constituting an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that long-term unauthorized absence or repeated unauthorized early departure and early closure of business can be evaluated not merely as poor attendance but as a breach of the duty to provide labor and a destruction of the relationship of trust with the company. In addition, if an employee repeatedly sends inappropriate expressions to the representative via text messages or other electronic means, such conduct may lead to disciplinary dismissal depending on the content and level of expression. Even in conflict situations, employees should therefore maintain a minimum level of workplace courtesy and restraint in their expressions. Furthermore, even if some of the alleged disciplinary grounds are not upheld, the dismissal may still be found justified if, based on the remaining grounds alone, it is evaluated under social norms that the employment relationship cannot continue. Accordingly, when preparing to contest a dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, employees should organize not only arguments on the existence or non-existence of each ground, but also arguments on the cumulative nature of all misconduct and the possibility of maintaining a relationship of trust. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when proceeding with a disciplinary dismissal, it is important to confirm whether the conduct falls within the disciplinary grounds stipulated in the rules of employment, collective agreement, etc., and to sufficiently secure objective evidence (attendance records, business operation records, text message captures, etc.) to prove those grounds. Particularly where multiple disciplinary grounds are asserted, employers should systematically organize the seriousness, repetitiveness, and impact on workplace order of each ground so that the dismissal can be justified even if some grounds are not upheld. Employers should also faithfully carry out the disciplinary procedures, including convening the disciplinary committee, giving prior notice, and providing an opportunity for explanation, and should ensure that the employee can actually attend and exercise the right to defend. As in this decision, where the employee appears before the disciplinary committee and provides explanations, minor defects in prior notice may be deemed cured. Therefore, employers should prepare from the perspective of “substantial guarantee of the right to defense,” rather than treating procedures as a mere formality. Such decisions illustrate how, in unfair dismissal disputes, the existence of disciplinary grounds, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and compliance with disciplinary procedures are assessed together. In responding to similar cases, it is advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review potential risks. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which some of the disciplinary grounds were upheld, and the resulting dismissal was found to be justified on the basis that the level of discipline was appropriate and there were no procedural defects. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether disciplinary grounds existed The employee’s conduct of being absent from work and leaving work early without prior approval from the employer, closing the business early without authorization, and sending multiple text messages containing inappropriate remarks to the representative was recognized as constituting disciplinary grounds attributable to the employee. However, the remarks allegedly made about the dismissal of a co-worker were not recognized as disciplinary grounds because the underlying facts could not be objectively verified. B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate ① The employee’s repeated long-term unauthorized absences constituted non-performance of the duty to provide labor, which is fundamental to the employment relationship, and thus amounted to serious disciplinary grounds for which the employee bears significant responsibility; ② the employee’s failure, in the position of team leader, to comply with company rules had a considerable impact on organizational order and the work atmosphere in a small-scale workplace; and ③ in light of the series of long-term and repeated acts of misconduct, it was determined that the minimum level of trust necessary to maintain the employment relationship between the parties had been destroyed. Taking these factors into account, it is difficult to conclude that the employer’s decision to dismiss the employee was an unlawful or unjust disposition constituting an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority. C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful The employee attended the disciplinary committee and presented explanations, and there was no confirmation that the employer violated the disciplinary procedures. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management/Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Remedial Interest/Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, unauthorized absence·early closure of business (long-term and repeated), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Severity·Transfer (Disadvantages in Daily Life)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to unauthorized absence·early closure of business (long-term and repeated) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Unauthorized Absence·Early Closure of Business (Long-Term and Repeated).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article