Pursuant to the Labor Code, Employers are banned from imposing LD on Employees who shows the violating acts that are not specified in the ILRs[1]. Accordingly, in order to impose LD on Employees, Employers must have their ILR clearly providing for Employees’ violations that will be subject to LD as well as the corresponding forms of disciplinary action. The regulations aim to ensure Employees’ right to know in advance about the violations and the sanctions to which they may be subjected in case of their ILR violation. Thereby, Employees can better understand and comply with the ILRs.
Thus, where Employers only set out the general
principle of requiring Employees to comply with the ILR like “Employees
are absolutely banned from drinking alcohol or beer at the workplace”
without specifying any type of violation to impose discipline thereon as well
as any form of LD action Employers apply to each specific violating act, they
cannot discipline Employee for any violation. If Employers impose any form of
LD on the acts that are not specified in the ILR as prescribed by law, they can
face multiple legal risks. Employees will then have the advantage in lodging
their complaints or initiating lawsuits at the competent court against the LD
by Employers. Therefore, where the ILR falls into one of the said cases, Employers
should promptly revise the ILR and re-register it, clearly defining the types
of violations and forms of LD for every single act as the basis for them to
deal with LD later.
[1]Article 128.3 Labor Code