Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Disclosure and Mockery of Grievance Report)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 524)
- Date2026/07/06 04:05
- Read 26
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a team leader–level employee who was dismissed for disciplinary reasons after disclosing the contents of a workplace grievance consultation to team members identified as alleged perpetrators, without consulting the complainant, and then openly mocking the contents of that consultation in front of others. The employee filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal.
The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the conduct constituted workplace harassment and whether the level of disciplinary action (dismissal) was appropriate. It ultimately rejected the employee’s application for relief and ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are whether the team leader’s act of disclosing and mocking the contents of a grievance report, without consent, in front of the team members identified as perpetrators constitutes workplace harassment, and whether dismissal as a disciplinary measure for such conduct is justified in terms of the severity of the discipline.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case noted that the team leader disclosed the contents of the grievance consultation in the presence of the team members identified as perpetrators without consulting the complainant; that the team leader openly mocked the contents of the consultation, thereby causing the complainant psychological anxiety and mental distress and worsening the complainant’s working environment; that such conduct constituted workplace harassment; that, as a team leader, the employee held a position requiring a higher level of duty of care and managerial responsibility than ordinary employees; and that, despite having completed annual workplace harassment prevention training and being fully capable of recognizing the risks of such conduct, the employee disregarded those risks.
In light of the above, the Commission held that both the grounds for discipline and the level of disciplinary action (dismissal) were justified, and therefore the dismissal did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees—particularly those in team leader or managerial positions—must be acutely aware that the obligation to maintain confidentiality over workplace grievances or harassment reports is significantly heightened. Disclosing the contents of a report without the complainant’s consent, or making remarks that mock or disparage the fact of the report itself, may in and of itself be recognized as workplace harassment and may justify disciplinary dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary not to treat workplace harassment prevention training as a mere formality, but to repeatedly educate managers in particular on the duty to maintain confidentiality over grievance handling and reports, and on the prohibition of secondary victimization.
In addition, employers should design disciplinary severity standards by comprehensively considering factors such as the manager’s position (e.g., team leader), the nature and degree of the workplace harassment, and its impact on organizational culture. Employers should also clearly establish disciplinary guidelines in advance to secure a level of justification that will be acceptable to the Labor Relations Commission and the courts.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Justification of the Grounds for Discipline
The fact that the team leader made public statements disclosing the contents of the grievance consultation, in the presence of team members identified as alleged perpetrators, without consulting the complainant, and openly mocked the contents of the consultation, was found to constitute workplace harassment because it caused the complainant psychological anxiety and other mental distress and worsened the complainant’s working environment. Accordingly, it was recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Given that, as a team leader, the employee was in a position requiring a higher level of duty of care and managerial responsibility than ordinary employees; that the employee had completed professional workplace harassment prevention training every year; and that, despite being fully capable of recognizing the risks inherent in disclosing a grievance report, the employee disregarded those risks, …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Justification of the Grounds for Discipline
The fact that the team leader made public statements disclosing the contents of the grievance consultation, in the presence of team members identified as alleged perpetrators, without consulting the complainant, and openly mocked the contents of the consultation, was found to constitute workplace harassment because it caused the complainant psychological anxiety and other mental distress and worsened the complainant’s working environment. Accordingly, it was recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Given that, as a team leader, the employee was in a position requiring a higher level of duty of care and managerial responsibility than ordinary employees; that the employee had completed professional workplace harassment prevention training every year; and that, despite being fully capable of recognizing the risks inherent in disclosing a grievance report, the employee disregarded those risks, … /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (disclosure and mockery of grievance report), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract (Project Completion Date Fixed-Term),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (disclosure and mockery of grievance report) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Disclosure and Mockery of Grievance Report).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a team leader–level employee who was dismissed for disciplinary reasons after disclosing the contents of a workplace grievance consultation to team members identified as alleged perpetrators, without consulting the complainant, and then openly mocking the contents of that consultation in front of others. The employee filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal.
The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the conduct constituted workplace harassment and whether the level of disciplinary action (dismissal) was appropriate. It ultimately rejected the employee’s application for relief and ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are whether the team leader’s act of disclosing and mocking the contents of a grievance report, without consent, in front of the team members identified as perpetrators constitutes workplace harassment, and whether dismissal as a disciplinary measure for such conduct is justified in terms of the severity of the discipline.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case noted that the team leader disclosed the contents of the grievance consultation in the presence of the team members identified as perpetrators without consulting the complainant; that the team leader openly mocked the contents of the consultation, thereby causing the complainant psychological anxiety and mental distress and worsening the complainant’s working environment; that such conduct constituted workplace harassment; that, as a team leader, the employee held a position requiring a higher level of duty of care and managerial responsibility than ordinary employees; and that, despite having completed annual workplace harassment prevention training and being fully capable of recognizing the risks of such conduct, the employee disregarded those risks.
In light of the above, the Commission held that both the grounds for discipline and the level of disciplinary action (dismissal) were justified, and therefore the dismissal did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees—particularly those in team leader or managerial positions—must be acutely aware that the obligation to maintain confidentiality over workplace grievances or harassment reports is significantly heightened. Disclosing the contents of a report without the complainant’s consent, or making remarks that mock or disparage the fact of the report itself, may in and of itself be recognized as workplace harassment and may justify disciplinary dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary not to treat workplace harassment prevention training as a mere formality, but to repeatedly educate managers in particular on the duty to maintain confidentiality over grievance handling and reports, and on the prohibition of secondary victimization.
In addition, employers should design disciplinary severity standards by comprehensively considering factors such as the manager’s position (e.g., team leader), the nature and degree of the workplace harassment, and its impact on organizational culture. Employers should also clearly establish disciplinary guidelines in advance to secure a level of justification that will be acceptable to the Labor Relations Commission and the courts.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Justification of the Grounds for Discipline
The fact that the team leader made public statements disclosing the contents of the grievance consultation, in the presence of team members identified as alleged perpetrators, without consulting the complainant, and openly mocked the contents of the consultation, was found to constitute workplace harassment because it caused the complainant psychological anxiety and other mental distress and worsened the complainant’s working environment. Accordingly, it was recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Given that, as a team leader, the employee was in a position requiring a higher level of duty of care and managerial responsibility than ordinary employees; that the employee had completed professional workplace harassment prevention training every year; and that, despite being fully capable of recognizing the risks inherent in disclosing a grievance report, the employee disregarded those risks, …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Justification of the Grounds for Discipline
The fact that the team leader made public statements disclosing the contents of the grievance consultation, in the presence of team members identified as alleged perpetrators, without consulting the complainant, and openly mocked the contents of the consultation, was found to constitute workplace harassment because it caused the complainant psychological anxiety and other mental distress and worsened the complainant’s working environment. Accordingly, it was recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Given that, as a team leader, the employee was in a position requiring a higher level of duty of care and managerial responsibility than ordinary employees; that the employee had completed professional workplace harassment prevention training every year; and that, despite being fully capable of recognizing the risks inherent in disclosing a grievance report, the employee disregarded those risks, … /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (disclosure and mockery of grievance report), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract (Project Completion Date Fixed-Term),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (disclosure and mockery of grievance report) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Disclosure and Mockery of Grievance Report).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
