Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Deviation from Trade Union Activities (Secondary Sexual Harassment Email)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 505)
- Date2026/06/29 04:18
- Read 25
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “deviation from trade union activities (secondary sexual harassment email).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae144 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-15 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The employee’s trade union activities deviated from the scope of legitimate trade union activities, and the employee’s act of sending emails constituted (i) secondary perpetration of workplace sexual harassment, (ii) workplace bullying, (iii) violation of the duty of confidentiality, and (iv) violation of members’ duties, and was therefore recognized as just cause for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee sent emails to company members in the course of trade union activities. The content of those emails became problematic as constituting secondary perpetration related to a workplace sexual harassment incident, workplace bullying, and breach of confidentiality. The employee was dismissed as a disciplinary measure and then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employee’s conduct constituted grounds for discipline and whether dismissal was an appropriate level of sanction, ultimately ruling in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether dismissal on the grounds that an email, purportedly sent as part of trade union activities, constitutes secondary sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and breach of confidentiality amounts to unfair dismissal.
In other words, the core questions are: if conduct goes beyond the limits of legitimate trade union activities guaranteed by the Constitution and the Trade Union Act, can an employee still avoid disciplinary responsibility merely because the conduct is labeled as trade union activity; and even if grounds for discipline are recognized, to what extent disciplinary measures, including dismissal, are permissible.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel held that the employee’s act of sending the emails fell outside the scope of legitimate trade union activities and constituted secondary perpetration against the victim of workplace sexual harassment, displayed a pattern of workplace bullying by repeatedly attacking a specific individual, violated the prohibition on disclosing confidential internal information to external parties or an unspecified large number of persons, and clearly breached the duties of members under the work rules. On this basis, the panel found that just cause for disciplinary action existed.
With respect to the dismissal, the panel took into account that multiple serious grounds for discipline existed simultaneously, that the conduct constituted a repeat offense within the period for aggravated disciplinary action following a prior sanction, that the case fell under reasons for which mitigation is difficult under the rules, that the employee showed no sign of remorse, and that the victim continued to suffer serious harm. Considering these factors comprehensively, the panel concluded that the dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of discretion that was markedly unreasonable by social standards, and therefore held that the dismissal did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
While employees’ trade union activities are, in principle, protected, you must bear in mind that where the content and manner of such activities amount to secondary perpetration against a sexual harassment victim, infringement of personal rights, workplace bullying, or breach of confidentiality, it becomes difficult to regard them as “legitimate trade union activities.”
In particular, where a sexual harassment incident is involved, you should exercise gender sensitivity and carefully consider, from the victim’s perspective, how emails, posts, or comments in group chat rooms may be received. Even if an act is carried out in the name of a trade union, once it goes beyond the scope permitted by the Constitution and the Trade Union Act, severe disciplinary measures, including dismissal, may be justified.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, in order to avoid committing an unfair labor practice on the grounds of trade union activities, you must organize and preserve evidence so that you can prove, through concrete facts and details of rule violations, that the grounds for discipline are not “legitimate union activities” but unlawful acts that exceed their limits.
In particular, secondary perpetration or bullying in the workplace related to sexual harassment, and breaches of confidentiality, may not only constitute grounds for discipline but also give rise to separate legal liabilities. Accordingly, employers should establish clear rules on these matters and, when determining the level of discipline, prepare a written statement setting out a comprehensive consideration of the seriousness of the misconduct, any repeat offenses, the extent of recovery for the victim, and whether the employee has shown remorse. This will increase the likelihood that labor relations commissions or courts will recognize both the existence of grounds for discipline and the appropriateness of the level of sanction.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The employee’s trade union activities deviated from the scope of legitimate trade union activities, and the employee’s act of sending emails constituted (i) secondary perpetration of workplace sexual harassment, (ii) workplace bullying, (iii) violation of the duty of confidentiality, and (iv) violation of members’ duties, and was therefore recognized as just cause for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The dismissal, in light of (i) the existence of multiple serious grounds for discipline, (ii) the fact that the conduct constituted a repeat offense within the period for aggravated disciplinary action, (iii) the fact that it fell under reasons for which mitigation is not allowed, (iv) the absence of any sign of remorse, and (v) the continued serious harm to the victim, cannot be regarded as an abuse of discretion that is markedly unreasonable by social standards, and therefore…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The employee’s trade union activities deviated from the scope of legitimate trade union activities, and the employee’s act of sending emails constituted (i) secondary perpetration of workplace sexual harassment, (ii) workplace bullying, (iii) violation of the duty of confidentiality, and (iv) violation of members’ duties, and was therefore recognized as just cause for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The dismissal, in light of (i) the existence of multiple serious grounds for discipline, (ii) the fact that the conduct constituted a repeat offense within the period for aggravated disciplinary action, (iii) the fact that it fell under reasons for which mitigation is not allowed, (iv) the absence of any sign of remorse, and (v) the continued serious harm to the victim, cannot be regarded as an abuse of discretion that is markedly unreasonable by social standards, and therefore… /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Existence of Grounds for Discipline (Branch Manager Engaging in Workplace Bullying)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, deviation from trade union activities (secondary sexual harassment email), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, 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, “‘Existence of Grounds for Discipline (Branch Manager Engaging in Workplace Bullying)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to deviation from trade union activities (secondary sexual harassment email) in the “List of Decisions on Deviation from Trade Union Activities (Secondary Sexual Harassment Email).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “deviation from trade union activities (secondary sexual harassment email).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae144 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-15 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The employee’s trade union activities deviated from the scope of legitimate trade union activities, and the employee’s act of sending emails constituted (i) secondary perpetration of workplace sexual harassment, (ii) workplace bullying, (iii) violation of the duty of confidentiality, and (iv) violation of members’ duties, and was therefore recognized as just cause for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee sent emails to company members in the course of trade union activities. The content of those emails became problematic as constituting secondary perpetration related to a workplace sexual harassment incident, workplace bullying, and breach of confidentiality. The employee was dismissed as a disciplinary measure and then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employee’s conduct constituted grounds for discipline and whether dismissal was an appropriate level of sanction, ultimately ruling in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether dismissal on the grounds that an email, purportedly sent as part of trade union activities, constitutes secondary sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and breach of confidentiality amounts to unfair dismissal.
In other words, the core questions are: if conduct goes beyond the limits of legitimate trade union activities guaranteed by the Constitution and the Trade Union Act, can an employee still avoid disciplinary responsibility merely because the conduct is labeled as trade union activity; and even if grounds for discipline are recognized, to what extent disciplinary measures, including dismissal, are permissible.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel held that the employee’s act of sending the emails fell outside the scope of legitimate trade union activities and constituted secondary perpetration against the victim of workplace sexual harassment, displayed a pattern of workplace bullying by repeatedly attacking a specific individual, violated the prohibition on disclosing confidential internal information to external parties or an unspecified large number of persons, and clearly breached the duties of members under the work rules. On this basis, the panel found that just cause for disciplinary action existed.
With respect to the dismissal, the panel took into account that multiple serious grounds for discipline existed simultaneously, that the conduct constituted a repeat offense within the period for aggravated disciplinary action following a prior sanction, that the case fell under reasons for which mitigation is difficult under the rules, that the employee showed no sign of remorse, and that the victim continued to suffer serious harm. Considering these factors comprehensively, the panel concluded that the dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of discretion that was markedly unreasonable by social standards, and therefore held that the dismissal did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
While employees’ trade union activities are, in principle, protected, you must bear in mind that where the content and manner of such activities amount to secondary perpetration against a sexual harassment victim, infringement of personal rights, workplace bullying, or breach of confidentiality, it becomes difficult to regard them as “legitimate trade union activities.”
In particular, where a sexual harassment incident is involved, you should exercise gender sensitivity and carefully consider, from the victim’s perspective, how emails, posts, or comments in group chat rooms may be received. Even if an act is carried out in the name of a trade union, once it goes beyond the scope permitted by the Constitution and the Trade Union Act, severe disciplinary measures, including dismissal, may be justified.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, in order to avoid committing an unfair labor practice on the grounds of trade union activities, you must organize and preserve evidence so that you can prove, through concrete facts and details of rule violations, that the grounds for discipline are not “legitimate union activities” but unlawful acts that exceed their limits.
In particular, secondary perpetration or bullying in the workplace related to sexual harassment, and breaches of confidentiality, may not only constitute grounds for discipline but also give rise to separate legal liabilities. Accordingly, employers should establish clear rules on these matters and, when determining the level of discipline, prepare a written statement setting out a comprehensive consideration of the seriousness of the misconduct, any repeat offenses, the extent of recovery for the victim, and whether the employee has shown remorse. This will increase the likelihood that labor relations commissions or courts will recognize both the existence of grounds for discipline and the appropriateness of the level of sanction.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The employee’s trade union activities deviated from the scope of legitimate trade union activities, and the employee’s act of sending emails constituted (i) secondary perpetration of workplace sexual harassment, (ii) workplace bullying, (iii) violation of the duty of confidentiality, and (iv) violation of members’ duties, and was therefore recognized as just cause for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The dismissal, in light of (i) the existence of multiple serious grounds for discipline, (ii) the fact that the conduct constituted a repeat offense within the period for aggravated disciplinary action, (iii) the fact that it fell under reasons for which mitigation is not allowed, (iv) the absence of any sign of remorse, and (v) the continued serious harm to the victim, cannot be regarded as an abuse of discretion that is markedly unreasonable by social standards, and therefore…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
The employee’s trade union activities deviated from the scope of legitimate trade union activities, and the employee’s act of sending emails constituted (i) secondary perpetration of workplace sexual harassment, (ii) workplace bullying, (iii) violation of the duty of confidentiality, and (iv) violation of members’ duties, and was therefore recognized as just cause for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The dismissal, in light of (i) the existence of multiple serious grounds for discipline, (ii) the fact that the conduct constituted a repeat offense within the period for aggravated disciplinary action, (iii) the fact that it fell under reasons for which mitigation is not allowed, (iv) the absence of any sign of remorse, and (v) the continued serious harm to the victim, cannot be regarded as an abuse of discretion that is markedly unreasonable by social standards, and therefore… /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Existence of Grounds for Discipline (Branch Manager Engaging in Workplace Bullying)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, deviation from trade union activities (secondary sexual harassment email), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, 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, “‘Existence of Grounds for Discipline (Branch Manager Engaging in Workplace Bullying)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to deviation from trade union activities (secondary sexual harassment email) in the “List of Decisions on Deviation from Trade Union Activities (Secondary Sexual Harassment Email).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
