Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment and Unlawful Conduct)” (Unfair Dismissal 627)
- Date2026/08/16 04:05
- Read 3
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the initial decision was upheld at the appeal stage, focusing on the issue of “disciplinary severity (workplace harassment and unlawful conduct).”
Decision Committee: National Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae140 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-07 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct in the form of “unlawful conduct in the workplace,” “violation of delegation of authority and work rules,” and “workplace harassment” all existed and constituted grounds for discipline as stipulated in the employer’s audit regulations and work rules.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s misconduct continued over a long period, there were multiple grounds for discipline, and the degree of misconduct appeared serious. The employer applied its internal standards on disciplinary severity and the criteria for aggravation and mitigation…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed dismissal on an employee on the grounds of “unlawful conduct in the workplace,” “violation of delegation of authority and work rules,” and “workplace harassment.” The employee claimed that the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The first‑instance Labor Relations Commission held that the dismissal was a legitimate exercise of the employer’s disciplinary authority. The employee then applied to the National Labor Relations Commission for re‑examination, but the initial decision was upheld.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where multiple acts of misconduct such as workplace harassment and violations of work rules exist, the employer’s dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) the level of disciplinary severity, and (iii) disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that the employee’s “unlawful conduct in the workplace,” “violation of delegation of authority and work rules,” and “workplace harassment” all existed and constituted grounds for discipline as stipulated in the employer’s audit regulations and work rules; that the misconduct continued over a long period, that there were multiple grounds for discipline, and that the degree of misconduct appeared serious; and that, in the process by which the employer applied its internal standards on disciplinary severity and the criteria for aggravation and mitigation and chose dismissal, there were no circumstances indicating an abuse of disciplinary discretion that was clearly unreasonable by social norms.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was held to be justified in terms of the grounds for discipline, the level of disciplinary severity, and the procedures, and therefore did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that where multiple acts that undermine corporate order—such as workplace harassment, violations of work rules, and abuse of discretion in the performance of duties—accumulate, dismissal or disciplinary discharge may be found justified even at the Labor Relations Commission stage. In particular, where misconduct has been repeated over a long period or no recovery for the victim has been achieved, it is important, when challenging the disciplinary severity as excessive, to systematically organize and submit specific rebuttal materials and circumstances in mitigation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to clearly stipulate unlawful conduct in the workplace, violations of delegation of authority and work rules, and workplace harassment as explicit grounds for discipline in audit regulations and work rules, and to establish in advance standards for disciplinary severity and factors for aggravation and mitigation, so that the legitimacy of disciplinary measures can be more easily recognized by the Labor Relations Commission. In addition, employers should keep thorough records of the disciplinary process so that they can prove that, after comprehensively reviewing consistency with similar cases, the content and duration of the misconduct, its impact on corporate order, and whether recovery for the victim has been achieved, they selected the appropriate level of discipline such as dismissal or suspension.
Taken together, in unfair dismissal disputes, it is important for both employees and employers to closely examine not only the “existence of grounds for discipline” but also whether “the proportionality of the disciplinary severity” and “the propriety of the procedures” are satisfied or can be contested. At the initial stage, you should design your case strategy with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct in the form of “unlawful conduct in the workplace,” “violation of delegation of authority and work rules,” and “workplace harassment” all existed and constituted grounds for discipline as stipulated in the employer’s audit regulations and work rules.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s misconduct continued over a long period, there were multiple grounds for discipline, and the degree of misconduct appeared serious. It is therefore deemed that the employer’s imposition of the disciplinary measure of “dismissal,” by applying its standards on disciplinary severity and the criteria for aggravation and mitigation, was a legitimate exercise of its disciplinary authority, and there are no circumstances indicating that the employer otherwise abused its discretionary power in determining discipline.
C. Disciplinary procedures …
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct in the form of “unlawful conduct in the workplace,” “violation of delegation of authority and work rules,” and “workplace harassment” all existed and constituted grounds for discipline as stipulated in the employer’s audit regulations and work rules.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s misconduct continued over a long period, there were multiple grounds for discipline, and the degree of misconduct appeared serious. It is therefore deemed that the employer’s imposition of the disciplinary measure of “dismissal,” by applying its standards on disciplinary severity and the criteria for aggravation and mitigation, was a legitimate exercise of its disciplinary authority, and there are no circumstances indicating that the employer otherwise abused its discretionary power in determining discipline.
C. Disciplinary procedures … /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissal (of Application)
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (workplace harassment·unlawful conduct), disciplinary dismissal, workplace harassment, 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Job Transfer (Separation of Assault Victim)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (workplace harassment·unlawful conduct) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment·Unlawful Conduct).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the initial decision was upheld at the appeal stage, focusing on the issue of “disciplinary severity (workplace harassment and unlawful conduct).”
Decision Committee: National Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae140 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-07 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct in the form of “unlawful conduct in the workplace,” “violation of delegation of authority and work rules,” and “workplace harassment” all existed and constituted grounds for discipline as stipulated in the employer’s audit regulations and work rules.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s misconduct continued over a long period, there were multiple grounds for discipline, and the degree of misconduct appeared serious. The employer applied its internal standards on disciplinary severity and the criteria for aggravation and mitigation…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed dismissal on an employee on the grounds of “unlawful conduct in the workplace,” “violation of delegation of authority and work rules,” and “workplace harassment.” The employee claimed that the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The first‑instance Labor Relations Commission held that the dismissal was a legitimate exercise of the employer’s disciplinary authority. The employee then applied to the National Labor Relations Commission for re‑examination, but the initial decision was upheld.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where multiple acts of misconduct such as workplace harassment and violations of work rules exist, the employer’s dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) the level of disciplinary severity, and (iii) disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that the employee’s “unlawful conduct in the workplace,” “violation of delegation of authority and work rules,” and “workplace harassment” all existed and constituted grounds for discipline as stipulated in the employer’s audit regulations and work rules; that the misconduct continued over a long period, that there were multiple grounds for discipline, and that the degree of misconduct appeared serious; and that, in the process by which the employer applied its internal standards on disciplinary severity and the criteria for aggravation and mitigation and chose dismissal, there were no circumstances indicating an abuse of disciplinary discretion that was clearly unreasonable by social norms.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was held to be justified in terms of the grounds for discipline, the level of disciplinary severity, and the procedures, and therefore did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that where multiple acts that undermine corporate order—such as workplace harassment, violations of work rules, and abuse of discretion in the performance of duties—accumulate, dismissal or disciplinary discharge may be found justified even at the Labor Relations Commission stage. In particular, where misconduct has been repeated over a long period or no recovery for the victim has been achieved, it is important, when challenging the disciplinary severity as excessive, to systematically organize and submit specific rebuttal materials and circumstances in mitigation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is advisable to clearly stipulate unlawful conduct in the workplace, violations of delegation of authority and work rules, and workplace harassment as explicit grounds for discipline in audit regulations and work rules, and to establish in advance standards for disciplinary severity and factors for aggravation and mitigation, so that the legitimacy of disciplinary measures can be more easily recognized by the Labor Relations Commission. In addition, employers should keep thorough records of the disciplinary process so that they can prove that, after comprehensively reviewing consistency with similar cases, the content and duration of the misconduct, its impact on corporate order, and whether recovery for the victim has been achieved, they selected the appropriate level of discipline such as dismissal or suspension.
Taken together, in unfair dismissal disputes, it is important for both employees and employers to closely examine not only the “existence of grounds for discipline” but also whether “the proportionality of the disciplinary severity” and “the propriety of the procedures” are satisfied or can be contested. At the initial stage, you should design your case strategy with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct in the form of “unlawful conduct in the workplace,” “violation of delegation of authority and work rules,” and “workplace harassment” all existed and constituted grounds for discipline as stipulated in the employer’s audit regulations and work rules.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s misconduct continued over a long period, there were multiple grounds for discipline, and the degree of misconduct appeared serious. It is therefore deemed that the employer’s imposition of the disciplinary measure of “dismissal,” by applying its standards on disciplinary severity and the criteria for aggravation and mitigation, was a legitimate exercise of its disciplinary authority, and there are no circumstances indicating that the employer otherwise abused its discretionary power in determining discipline.
C. Disciplinary procedures …
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s misconduct in the form of “unlawful conduct in the workplace,” “violation of delegation of authority and work rules,” and “workplace harassment” all existed and constituted grounds for discipline as stipulated in the employer’s audit regulations and work rules.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s misconduct continued over a long period, there were multiple grounds for discipline, and the degree of misconduct appeared serious. It is therefore deemed that the employer’s imposition of the disciplinary measure of “dismissal,” by applying its standards on disciplinary severity and the criteria for aggravation and mitigation, was a legitimate exercise of its disciplinary authority, and there are no circumstances indicating that the employer otherwise abused its discretionary power in determining discipline.
C. Disciplinary procedures … /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissal (of Application)
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (workplace harassment·unlawful conduct), disciplinary dismissal, workplace harassment, 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Job Transfer (Separation of Assault Victim)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (workplace harassment·unlawful conduct) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment·Unlawful Conduct).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
