KLAWGURU.COM

Korean Law Demystified!

You Cannot Punish What the Rulebook Does Not List: Court Strikes Down Unlisted Disciplinary Measure

By ,

A Korean administrative court has ruled that an employer cannot impose a form of disciplinary action that does not appear in its own internal disciplinary rules — and that doing so constitutes an abuse of disciplinary authority, regardless of how the measure is labeled. Here are the key points.

Issue

Can a company impose a position transfer as a disciplinary measure when that form of punishment is not listed among the types of discipline permitted under the company’s collective agreement or employment rules?

Facts

  • Employee A worked in production management at Company B and served as a union officer.
  • Company B disciplined A on grounds that he leaked production planning data and placed unauthorized purchase orders, imposing two measures simultaneously: one month’s suspension from work, and a position transfer.
  • The position transfer was subsequently carried out by reassigning A from an office-based role to a frontline production floor position.
  • A challenged both measures before the regional labor commission and then the National Labor Relations Commission, arguing unfair discipline and unfair labor practice. Both challenges were dismissed.
  • A then filed suit to overturn the National Labor Relations Commission’s decision.

Rule

  • Disciplinary action is an adverse measure imposed on an employee. Under Korean labor law principles, an employer may only impose forms of discipline that are expressly listed in the applicable collective agreement, employment rules, or disciplinary regulations.
  • Permitting unlisted forms of discipline would leave workers unable to anticipate what punishments they might face, and would open the door to arbitrary disciplinary decisions by those in authority.
  • Company B’s collective agreement listed only five permissible disciplinary measures: warning, reprimand, pay reduction, suspension, and dismissal. Its employment rules listed four: reprimand, pay reduction, work suspension, and disciplinary dismissal. Position transfer appeared on neither list.

Court Decision

  • The Seoul Administrative Court (Administrative Division 13, Presiding Judge Jin Hyeon-seop) ruled partially in favor of A on February 26, 2026.
  • The court found that including position transfer as a disciplinary measure — with no basis in either the collective agreement or the employment rules — exceeded and abused the company’s disciplinary discretion, rendering that portion of the discipline unlawful.
  • The one-month suspension, by contrast, was a listed measure and was not struck down on this ground.
  • On the unfair labor practice claim, the court ruled against A. It found insufficient evidence that Company B imposed the discipline with the intention of disadvantaging A because of his union membership or activities.

Key Takeaways

  • Employers are strictly bound by the catalogue of disciplinary measures set out in their collective agreements and employment rules. Inventing or adding measures on an ad hoc basis — even measures that might seem less severe than those listed — is unlawful.
  • The rationale is twofold: predictability for employees, and prevention of arbitrary punishment. Both are undermined when employers act outside their defined disciplinary framework.
  • A disciplinary measure being labeled something other than “discipline” — such as a personnel reassignment — does not shield it from scrutiny if it functions as punishment and lacks a proper basis in the rules.
  • Unfair labor practice claims require affirmative evidence of anti-union intent. The mere fact that the disciplined employee is a union officer is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that intent.

Why This Matters

This ruling is a practical reminder for HR practitioners and employment lawyers that disciplinary procedures are not just guidelines — they are legal boundaries. Before imposing any adverse measure, employers must verify that it appears explicitly in the applicable disciplinary framework. For employees and union representatives, the decision reinforces that the enumerated list of disciplinary measures in a collective agreement is not merely illustrative — it is exhaustive, and anything outside it is challengeable.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=219920

Leave a comment