Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Sexual Harassment and Unauthorised Absence (Text Messages After a Company Dinner)” (Unfair Dismissal 498)
- Date2026/06/05 04:09
- Read 42
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “sexual harassment and unauthorised absence (text messages after a company dinner).”
Adjudicating Body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2026Buhae65 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.18 · Outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Based on the text messages exchanged between the employee and Ms. Yang ○, a company employee, regarding what occurred on the day of the company dinner, and the internal workplace sexual harassment investigation report, the employee’s workplace sexual harassment was found to be established. In addition, the employee’s prolonged absence from work without a valid reason, despite the employer’s repeated requests to report for duty, was held to constitute just cause for disciplinary action.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an application for remedy for unfair dismissal in which the issues were, first, whether workplace sexual harassment was established where an employee, after a company dinner, sent text messages to a co‑worker that caused sexual humiliation and discomfort, and second, whether, taking into account the subsequent prolonged absence from work despite the employer’s repeated requests to return, the disciplinary dismissal was justified.
The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, arguing that the dismissal was excessively harsh and procedurally defective and therefore constituted unfair dismissal. The employer argued that, given the sexual harassment and the serious misconduct of prolonged unauthorised absence, disciplinary dismissal was unavoidable.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether, in a situation where both workplace sexual harassment after a company dinner and prolonged absence from work despite the employer’s repeated requests to report for duty are present, the disciplinary dismissal constitutes just cause for termination to the extent that continuation of the employment relationship is impossible under social norms, and whether the disciplinary procedure conducted in the absence of separate disciplinary rules was lawful.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case, in light of the text messages exchanged between the employee and the victim regarding what occurred on the day of the company dinner, the workplace sexual harassment investigation report confirming the fact of workplace sexual harassment, the fact that the employee was absent from work for a prolonged period without a valid reason despite the employer’s repeated requests to report for duty, and the fact that such misconduct seriously damaged the relationship of trust with the company to the extent that it appeared difficult to maintain the employment relationship,
found that clear grounds for discipline existed and that the degree of the employee’s responsibility was so great that continuation of the employment relationship was no longer possible under social norms. Furthermore, although the company did not have separate rules governing disciplinary procedures, the employer specified the grounds for dismissal, gave prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee and an opportunity for the employee to present explanations, and notified the disciplinary outcome in writing. Taking these factors into account, the Commission held that the disciplinary procedure had been lawfully conducted and that the dismissal could not be regarded as so excessively harsh as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority, and therefore rejected the claim of unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that conduct and remarks made in informal settings such as company dinners, as well as subsequent conduct such as text messages, can all be subject to assessment as workplace sexual harassment. In addition, where an employee repeatedly refuses the employer’s legitimate requests to report for duty and is absent for a prolonged period, the combination of sexual harassment and absence may be reflected in the determination of the level of discipline and may ultimately lead to disciplinary dismissal. Accordingly, once a dispute has arisen, rather than engaging in unauthorised absence, employees should respond through internal procedures or by seeking advice from experts such as the Labor Relations Commission or Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, upon receipt of a workplace sexual harassment complaint, an immediate fact‑finding investigation should be conducted, and the investigation results and related evidence (text messages, messenger records, written statements, etc.) should be systematically secured to establish a basis for proving the grounds for discipline. Even in the absence of separate disciplinary rules, the minimum procedures must be observed: prior notice of the grounds for discipline, notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee, provision of an opportunity for the employee to present explanations, and written notification of the disciplinary outcome. In cases where sexual harassment overlaps with prolonged unauthorised absence, it is necessary to comprehensively review, in light of Supreme Court precedents, whether the level of discipline is not excessively harsh under social norms.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Based on the text messages exchanged between the employee and Ms. Yang ○, a company employee, regarding what occurred on the day of the company dinner, and the workplace sexual harassment investigation report, the employee’s workplace sexual harassment was found to be established. The employee’s prolonged absence from work without a valid reason, despite the employer’s repeated requests to report for duty, was held to constitute just cause for disciplinary action.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The grounds for discipline recognised in respect of the employee were found to constitute reasons attributable to the employee to such an extent that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer could not be maintained. The dismissal could not be regarded as a disposition that was so clearly lacking in reasonableness under social norms as to amount to an abuse of the discretionary authority vested in the disciplinary decision‑maker.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Although the company did not have separate rules governing disciplinary procedures, in imposing the dismissal the employer specified the grounds for discipline, gave prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee and an opportunity for the employee to present explanations, and notified the disciplinary outcome in writing. In light of these factors, the disciplinary procedure was deemed to have been observed, and no other illegality in the disciplinary procedure was found.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Based on the text messages exchanged between the employee and Ms. Yang ○, a company employee, regarding what occurred on the day of the company dinner, and the workplace sexual harassment investigation report, the employee’s workplace sexual harassment was found to be established. The employee’s prolonged absence from work without a valid reason, despite the employer’s repeated requests to report for duty, was held to constitute just cause for disciplinary action.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The grounds for discipline recognised in respect of the employee were found to constitute reasons attributable to the employee to such an extent that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer could not be maintained. The dismissal could not be regarded as a disposition that was so clearly lacking in reasonableness under social norms as to amount to an abuse of the discretionary authority vested in the disciplinary decision‑maker.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Although the company did not have separate rules governing disciplinary procedures, in imposing the dismissal the employer specified the grounds for discipline, gave prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee and an opportunity for the employee to present explanations, and notified the disciplinary outcome in writing. In light of these factors, the disciplinary procedure was deemed to have been observed, and no other illegality in the disciplinary procedure was found. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case outcome: First‑instance decision upheld
- “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Night Shift Maintenance Work)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, sexual harassment and unauthorised absence (text messages after a company dinner), disciplinary dismissal, workplace sexual harassment, unauthorised absence, 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Night Shift Maintenance Work)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to sexual harassment and unauthorised absence (text messages after a company dinner) can be viewed together on the “Sexual Harassment and Unauthorised Absence (Text Messages After a Company Dinner) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “sexual harassment and unauthorised absence (text messages after a company dinner).”
Adjudicating Body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2026Buhae65 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.18 · Outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Based on the text messages exchanged between the employee and Ms. Yang ○, a company employee, regarding what occurred on the day of the company dinner, and the internal workplace sexual harassment investigation report, the employee’s workplace sexual harassment was found to be established. In addition, the employee’s prolonged absence from work without a valid reason, despite the employer’s repeated requests to report for duty, was held to constitute just cause for disciplinary action.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an application for remedy for unfair dismissal in which the issues were, first, whether workplace sexual harassment was established where an employee, after a company dinner, sent text messages to a co‑worker that caused sexual humiliation and discomfort, and second, whether, taking into account the subsequent prolonged absence from work despite the employer’s repeated requests to return, the disciplinary dismissal was justified.
The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, arguing that the dismissal was excessively harsh and procedurally defective and therefore constituted unfair dismissal. The employer argued that, given the sexual harassment and the serious misconduct of prolonged unauthorised absence, disciplinary dismissal was unavoidable.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether, in a situation where both workplace sexual harassment after a company dinner and prolonged absence from work despite the employer’s repeated requests to report for duty are present, the disciplinary dismissal constitutes just cause for termination to the extent that continuation of the employment relationship is impossible under social norms, and whether the disciplinary procedure conducted in the absence of separate disciplinary rules was lawful.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case, in light of the text messages exchanged between the employee and the victim regarding what occurred on the day of the company dinner, the workplace sexual harassment investigation report confirming the fact of workplace sexual harassment, the fact that the employee was absent from work for a prolonged period without a valid reason despite the employer’s repeated requests to report for duty, and the fact that such misconduct seriously damaged the relationship of trust with the company to the extent that it appeared difficult to maintain the employment relationship,
found that clear grounds for discipline existed and that the degree of the employee’s responsibility was so great that continuation of the employment relationship was no longer possible under social norms. Furthermore, although the company did not have separate rules governing disciplinary procedures, the employer specified the grounds for dismissal, gave prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee and an opportunity for the employee to present explanations, and notified the disciplinary outcome in writing. Taking these factors into account, the Commission held that the disciplinary procedure had been lawfully conducted and that the dismissal could not be regarded as so excessively harsh as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority, and therefore rejected the claim of unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that conduct and remarks made in informal settings such as company dinners, as well as subsequent conduct such as text messages, can all be subject to assessment as workplace sexual harassment. In addition, where an employee repeatedly refuses the employer’s legitimate requests to report for duty and is absent for a prolonged period, the combination of sexual harassment and absence may be reflected in the determination of the level of discipline and may ultimately lead to disciplinary dismissal. Accordingly, once a dispute has arisen, rather than engaging in unauthorised absence, employees should respond through internal procedures or by seeking advice from experts such as the Labor Relations Commission or Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, upon receipt of a workplace sexual harassment complaint, an immediate fact‑finding investigation should be conducted, and the investigation results and related evidence (text messages, messenger records, written statements, etc.) should be systematically secured to establish a basis for proving the grounds for discipline. Even in the absence of separate disciplinary rules, the minimum procedures must be observed: prior notice of the grounds for discipline, notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee, provision of an opportunity for the employee to present explanations, and written notification of the disciplinary outcome. In cases where sexual harassment overlaps with prolonged unauthorised absence, it is necessary to comprehensively review, in light of Supreme Court precedents, whether the level of discipline is not excessively harsh under social norms.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Based on the text messages exchanged between the employee and Ms. Yang ○, a company employee, regarding what occurred on the day of the company dinner, and the workplace sexual harassment investigation report, the employee’s workplace sexual harassment was found to be established. The employee’s prolonged absence from work without a valid reason, despite the employer’s repeated requests to report for duty, was held to constitute just cause for disciplinary action.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The grounds for discipline recognised in respect of the employee were found to constitute reasons attributable to the employee to such an extent that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer could not be maintained. The dismissal could not be regarded as a disposition that was so clearly lacking in reasonableness under social norms as to amount to an abuse of the discretionary authority vested in the disciplinary decision‑maker.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Although the company did not have separate rules governing disciplinary procedures, in imposing the dismissal the employer specified the grounds for discipline, gave prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee and an opportunity for the employee to present explanations, and notified the disciplinary outcome in writing. In light of these factors, the disciplinary procedure was deemed to have been observed, and no other illegality in the disciplinary procedure was found.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Based on the text messages exchanged between the employee and Ms. Yang ○, a company employee, regarding what occurred on the day of the company dinner, and the workplace sexual harassment investigation report, the employee’s workplace sexual harassment was found to be established. The employee’s prolonged absence from work without a valid reason, despite the employer’s repeated requests to report for duty, was held to constitute just cause for disciplinary action.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The grounds for discipline recognised in respect of the employee were found to constitute reasons attributable to the employee to such an extent that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer could not be maintained. The dismissal could not be regarded as a disposition that was so clearly lacking in reasonableness under social norms as to amount to an abuse of the discretionary authority vested in the disciplinary decision‑maker.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Although the company did not have separate rules governing disciplinary procedures, in imposing the dismissal the employer specified the grounds for discipline, gave prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee and an opportunity for the employee to present explanations, and notified the disciplinary outcome in writing. In light of these factors, the disciplinary procedure was deemed to have been observed, and no other illegality in the disciplinary procedure was found. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case outcome: First‑instance decision upheld
- “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Night Shift Maintenance Work)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, sexual harassment and unauthorised absence (text messages after a company dinner), disciplinary dismissal, workplace sexual harassment, unauthorised absence, 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Night Shift Maintenance Work)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to sexual harassment and unauthorised absence (text messages after a company dinner) can be viewed together on the “Sexual Harassment and Unauthorised Absence (Text Messages After a Company Dinner) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
