Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Repeat Sexual Harassment at a Company Dinner)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 519)
- Date2026/07/04 04:11
- Read 22
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a worker who had already received a written warning for sexual harassment at a company dinner and was then found to have committed sexual harassment again in the workplace. The employer imposed disciplinary dismissal, and the worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief on the ground of unfair dismissal. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a hearing focusing on whether the employer’s disciplinary dismissal was justified and ultimately dismissed the worker’s application for relief.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is: “Where a worker who has a prior record of having received a written warning for sexual harassment at a company dinner commits sexual harassment again in the workplace, whether the employer has a duty to discipline or dismiss the perpetrator of sexual harassment, and, in light of the need to protect the victim’s working environment, whether the level of disciplinary dismissal in this case is markedly unreasonable by social standards.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the worker committed sexual harassment again despite having already received a written warning for sexual harassment at a company dinner; that the employer had repeatedly conducted training prohibiting workplace sexual harassment by frequently sharing “cases of incidents and accidents involving executives and employees”; and that, as a matter of personnel management practice, the employer had in most cases imposed strict disciplinary dismissal for sexual harassment committed by managers.
It further considered that if the victim were to continue working in the same space as the perpetrating worker, there was a substantial risk that the victim’s working environment would deteriorate to an intolerable level; that it was difficult to see that the worker showed remorse or any genuine intent to reform; and that, under the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act, the employer has both a duty to discipline the perpetrator of sexual harassment and a duty to protect the victim.
In light of all these factors, the panel held that the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as exceeding the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline, and that it could not be evaluated as objectively and clearly unreasonable. Accordingly, it ruled that the dismissal did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, it should be noted that even a single act of sexual harassment in the workplace can constitute grounds for discipline, and that where sexual harassment is found to have been committed again after a prior warning or other disciplinary measure, disciplinary dismissal may be justified. In addition, whether conduct constitutes sexual harassment is determined not by the actor’s intent but by whether, from the victim’s standpoint and that of an average person, it caused sexual humiliation or aversion. Therefore, it is necessary to exercise strict self-control even with respect to ambiguous jokes or physical contact.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to provide workplace sexual harassment prevention training, to clearly set out rules prohibiting sexual harassment and standards for discipline, and, when an incident actually occurs, to send a clear message within the organization by conducting a prompt investigation and applying consistent disciplinary standards. In particular, given the duty to protect the victim’s working environment and the potential for future liability for damages and harm to corporate image, it is necessary to set disciplinary severity more strictly in cases of repeat offenses or sexual harassment committed by managers, and to document such standards and measures in advance to help prevent disputes.
This type of decision is a useful example of how the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal for workplace sexual harassment is assessed in unfair dismissal disputes. In similar cases, both workers and employers are advised to consult sufficiently with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… (i) The worker had previously received a “written warning” on July 23, 2024, in relation to sexual harassment that occurred at a company dinner; (ii) the employer had frequently emphasized the prohibition of workplace sexual harassment by sharing “cases of incidents and accidents involving executives and employees”; (iii) the employer had, in most cases, imposed disciplinary dismissal for workplace sexual harassment committed by managers; (iv) if the victim were to work together with the worker, it could result in deterioration of the victim’s working environment; (v) it was difficult to find that the worker showed remorse or any genuine intent to reform; and (vi) there was a need for the employer to strictly address the worker’s misconduct in order to restore organizational discipline and workplace order within the company …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… (i) The worker had previously received a “written warning” on July 23, 2024, in relation to sexual harassment that occurred at a company dinner; (ii) the employer had frequently emphasized the prohibition of workplace sexual harassment by sharing “cases of incidents and accidents involving executives and employees”; (iii) the employer had, in most cases, imposed disciplinary dismissal for workplace sexual harassment committed by managers; (iv) if the victim were to work together with the worker, it could result in deterioration of the victim’s working environment; (v) it was difficult to find that the worker showed remorse or any genuine intent to reform; and (vi) there was a need for the employer to strictly address the worker’s misconduct in order to restore organizational discipline and workplace order within the company … /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unestablished Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: - Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
- ‘Legitimacy of Transfer (Job Rotation Transfer)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (repeat sexual harassment at a company dinner), disciplinary dismissal, workplace harassment, 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, “‘Legitimacy of Transfer (Job Rotation Transfer)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (repeat sexual harassment at a company dinner) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Repeat Sexual Harassment at a Company Dinner).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a worker who had already received a written warning for sexual harassment at a company dinner and was then found to have committed sexual harassment again in the workplace. The employer imposed disciplinary dismissal, and the worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief on the ground of unfair dismissal. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a hearing focusing on whether the employer’s disciplinary dismissal was justified and ultimately dismissed the worker’s application for relief.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is: “Where a worker who has a prior record of having received a written warning for sexual harassment at a company dinner commits sexual harassment again in the workplace, whether the employer has a duty to discipline or dismiss the perpetrator of sexual harassment, and, in light of the need to protect the victim’s working environment, whether the level of disciplinary dismissal in this case is markedly unreasonable by social standards.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the worker committed sexual harassment again despite having already received a written warning for sexual harassment at a company dinner; that the employer had repeatedly conducted training prohibiting workplace sexual harassment by frequently sharing “cases of incidents and accidents involving executives and employees”; and that, as a matter of personnel management practice, the employer had in most cases imposed strict disciplinary dismissal for sexual harassment committed by managers.
It further considered that if the victim were to continue working in the same space as the perpetrating worker, there was a substantial risk that the victim’s working environment would deteriorate to an intolerable level; that it was difficult to see that the worker showed remorse or any genuine intent to reform; and that, under the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act, the employer has both a duty to discipline the perpetrator of sexual harassment and a duty to protect the victim.
In light of all these factors, the panel held that the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as exceeding the bounds of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline, and that it could not be evaluated as objectively and clearly unreasonable. Accordingly, it ruled that the dismissal did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, it should be noted that even a single act of sexual harassment in the workplace can constitute grounds for discipline, and that where sexual harassment is found to have been committed again after a prior warning or other disciplinary measure, disciplinary dismissal may be justified. In addition, whether conduct constitutes sexual harassment is determined not by the actor’s intent but by whether, from the victim’s standpoint and that of an average person, it caused sexual humiliation or aversion. Therefore, it is necessary to exercise strict self-control even with respect to ambiguous jokes or physical contact.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to provide workplace sexual harassment prevention training, to clearly set out rules prohibiting sexual harassment and standards for discipline, and, when an incident actually occurs, to send a clear message within the organization by conducting a prompt investigation and applying consistent disciplinary standards. In particular, given the duty to protect the victim’s working environment and the potential for future liability for damages and harm to corporate image, it is necessary to set disciplinary severity more strictly in cases of repeat offenses or sexual harassment committed by managers, and to document such standards and measures in advance to help prevent disputes.
This type of decision is a useful example of how the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal for workplace sexual harassment is assessed in unfair dismissal disputes. In similar cases, both workers and employers are advised to consult sufficiently with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… (i) The worker had previously received a “written warning” on July 23, 2024, in relation to sexual harassment that occurred at a company dinner; (ii) the employer had frequently emphasized the prohibition of workplace sexual harassment by sharing “cases of incidents and accidents involving executives and employees”; (iii) the employer had, in most cases, imposed disciplinary dismissal for workplace sexual harassment committed by managers; (iv) if the victim were to work together with the worker, it could result in deterioration of the victim’s working environment; (v) it was difficult to find that the worker showed remorse or any genuine intent to reform; and (vi) there was a need for the employer to strictly address the worker’s misconduct in order to restore organizational discipline and workplace order within the company …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… (i) The worker had previously received a “written warning” on July 23, 2024, in relation to sexual harassment that occurred at a company dinner; (ii) the employer had frequently emphasized the prohibition of workplace sexual harassment by sharing “cases of incidents and accidents involving executives and employees”; (iii) the employer had, in most cases, imposed disciplinary dismissal for workplace sexual harassment committed by managers; (iv) if the victim were to work together with the worker, it could result in deterioration of the victim’s working environment; (v) it was difficult to find that the worker showed remorse or any genuine intent to reform; and (vi) there was a need for the employer to strictly address the worker’s misconduct in order to restore organizational discipline and workplace order within the company … /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unestablished Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: - Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
- ‘Legitimacy of Transfer (Job Rotation Transfer)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (repeat sexual harassment at a company dinner), disciplinary dismissal, workplace harassment, 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, “‘Legitimacy of Transfer (Job Rotation Transfer)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (repeat sexual harassment at a company dinner) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Repeat Sexual Harassment at a Company Dinner).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
