[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the issue of “excessive severity of disciplinary measure (disruptive conduct in the office)” was examined and the initial decision was upheld. Decision date: 2026-09-04 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae509 Key issue summary: A. Whether grounds for discipline existed The employee’s disruptive conduct in the company office on 6 January and 25 March 2025, including raising his voice, constituted grounds for discipline as defined in the employer’s personnel regulations. 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case is a precedent from the Central Labor Relations Commission concerning the severity of disciplinary measures. The Commission generally acknowledged both the grounds and procedure for discipline, while finding only the level of discipline to be excessively harsh. This is a type of case frequently encountered in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&, and it is particularly useful for understanding the criteria for determining “excessive severity” in disciplinary dismissal, which differs from collective redundancy. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee engaged in disruptive conduct in the company office, including raising his voice, and was separately called into question over the handling and reporting process of a traffic accident. He was ultimately dismissed for cause. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging absence of grounds for discipline, procedural defects in the disciplinary process, and excessive severity of the disciplinary measure. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is: “Where some misconduct is established and there are no serious defects in the disciplinary procedure, whether, in light of the nature and degree of the misconduct, dismissal as a disciplinary measure is so excessively severe by social standards as to be unfair.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employee’s disruptive conduct in the office did constitute grounds for discipline under the personnel regulations. However, it held that the “failure to report” aspect relating to the traffic accident could not readily be regarded as a violation of the employer’s instructions, and that, given the absence of any provisions on limitation periods for discipline or related time limits (such as review periods) in the disciplinary procedure rules, and in light of the fact that the employer had afforded the employee an opportunity to explain, the mere fact that the initiation of the disciplinary process was somewhat delayed did not amount to a serious procedural defect. Accordingly, while generally recognizing the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the procedure, the panel held that, taking into account the motive, background, and specific content of the misconduct, the objective of maintaining workplace discipline sought to be achieved through discipline, and the general level of sanctions imposed in similar cases, dismissal was an excessively severe measure that had clearly lost its justification by social standards. The dismissal in this case was therefore found to be unfair on the basis that the severity of the disciplinary measure was excessive in relation to the misconduct and exceeded the bounds of the employer’s discretion in determining disciplinary measures. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, even where some wrongdoing is acknowledged, it should be borne in mind that if the level of discipline is disproportionately severe, it may be challenged as unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. In particular, where the grounds for discipline are minor, accidental, or temporary, or have not in fact caused serious damage to the company or disruption to corporate order, it is important to prepare the case focusing on the argument of “excessive severity of disciplinary measure.” In relation to traffic accidents and reporting obligations, it is also necessary to carefully organize the actual content of the employer’s specific instructions, workplace practice, and the measures taken by the employee (terms of settlement, photographs, contact details, etc.), and to substantiate that “in substance, the employee fulfilled his obligations.” Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the company’s perspective, the mere fact that grounds for discipline exist does not mean that the most severe measure, such as dismissal, should be imposed immediately. The company should review, in a comprehensive manner, the nature, motive, and background of the misconduct, the employee’s length of service and past disciplinary record, and the actual extent of harm caused to the company, and should check whether the level of discipline is acceptable by social standards. Even where internal guidelines on the severity of disciplinary measures exist, they should not be applied mechanically; instead, the company should reflect the specific circumstances and consider phased sanctions (warning, pay reduction, suspension, etc.) to help prevent disputes. In addition, by including basic time-limit provisions such as limitation periods for discipline or review periods in the disciplinary procedure rules, and by keeping clear records of the opportunities given to the employee to explain during the initiation, review, and notification stages of discipline, it becomes easier to have the procedural lawfulness of the discipline recognized by the Labor Relations Commission. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. 02.6741.0002) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which some grounds for discipline were acknowledged and no procedural defects were found, but the disciplinary measure was held to be unfair because its severity was excessive in relation to the misconduct. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether grounds for discipline existed The employee’s disruptive conduct in the company office on 6 January and 25 March 2025, including raising his voice, constituted grounds for discipline as defined in the employer’s personnel regulations. However, the fact that, after voluntarily settling with the other party to the accident on 23 March 2025, the employee notified the employer of the occurrence of the accident but did not report the other party’s name, contact details, vehicle number, and photographs of the damaged area cannot be viewed as a violation of the duty to report the accident. Accordingly, the failure to comply with the work instruction dated 23 March 2025 (failure to report – traffic accident) cannot be recognized as a ground for discipline. B. Whether the severity of the disciplinary measure was appropriate In light of the background and specific content of the misconduct, the severity of the disciplinary measure was excessive in relation to the objective sought to be achieved through discipline, and therefore exceeded the scope of the discretion entrusted to the employer. The severity of the disciplinary measure was thus inappropriate. C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful The company’s disciplinary procedure rules contain no reference whatsoever to limitation periods for discipline or to time limits relating to the disciplinary procedure that could be regarded as limitation periods (such as disciplinary review periods), and, given that the employer afforded the employee an opportunity to explain the grounds for discipline, it is difficult to regard the mere fact that the initiation of the disciplinary process was somewhat delayed as a procedural defect sufficient to warrant annulment of the discipline in this case. [See More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on Excessive Severity of Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Supervision and Management)” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on Severity of Disciplinary Measure (Participation in Services for Another Entity)” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive severity of disciplinary measure (disruptive conduct in the office), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The list of precedents related to excessive severity of disciplinary measure (disruptive conduct in the office) can be found at: “List of precedents related to excessive severity of disciplinary measure (disruptive conduct in the office)”. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article