Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Entering the Women’s Restroom)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 548)
- Date2026/07/17 04:04
- Read 17
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “disciplinary severity (entering the women’s restroom).”
Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae409 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-28 · Case Result: Fully Upheld (Employee’s Claim)
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of entering the women’s restroom constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity, which is prescribed as a ground for discipline under Article 45(7) of the Personnel Management Regulations for Permanent Employees, etc. of the National Heritage Administration. Accordingly, grounds for discipline exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a permanent employee of a public institution was dismissed for disciplinary reasons on the ground that he entered the women’s restroom. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, which was contested before the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employee’s conduct violated the duty to maintain dignity under the Personnel Management Regulations for Permanent Employees, etc. of the National Heritage Administration, and, if so, whether dismissal was an appropriate level of discipline in light of that violation.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Even where an employee’s act of entering the women’s restroom constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity, can the Labor Relations Commission nonetheless find unfair dismissal on the ground of abuse of the employer’s discretion in determining the severity of discipline, taking into account the circumstances of the act, the employee’s post-incident attitude, and the victim’s wishes?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that the employee’s act of entering the women’s restroom in itself constitutes a ground for discipline as a violation of the duty to maintain dignity under the Personnel Management Regulations. However, in view of the following: during the grievance review committee, disciplinary committee, and the Commission’s own hearing, the employee acknowledged that his conduct was wrongful and showed remorse; and the victim of workplace sexual harassment expressed that she did not wish the employee to be separately disciplined solely for the act of entering the women’s restroom,
the Commission found that the dismissal in this case should be regarded as a sanction that is markedly excessive by social standards in light of the nature and degree of the misconduct, and thus constitutes a departure from and abuse of the employer’s discretion in determining disciplinary severity.
[Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning – Connection to Legal Principles]
The Labor Relations Commission premised its reasoning on the disciplinary severity criteria presented by the Supreme Court, namely that the employer’s business purpose and nature, the employee’s position and job duties, the motive, circumstances, and frequency of the misconduct, the impact on workplace order, and the employee’s past work attitude must all be considered comprehensively. On that premise, while recognizing that a high duty to maintain dignity is required of public institution employees, the Commission found that the conduct in this case did not reach the level of repeated or overt workplace sexual harassment that would render the work environment intolerably hostile. Taking into account the victim’s wishes, the employee’s remorse, and the availability of other sanctions, the Commission held that dismissal was objectively and clearly an excessively severe measure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to clearly recognize that conduct such as entering the women’s restroom, which can give rise to misunderstandings of a sexual nature, may itself constitute a violation of the duty to maintain dignity under internal regulations and thus a ground for discipline. However, when preparing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, employees should bear in mind that if they systematically substantiate the specific circumstances of the act, whether it was repeated, the victim’s wishes, and their own sincere remorse and commitment to preventing recurrence, there is room for the Labor Relations Commission to find that the level of discipline imposed was excessive.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, while a strict response is required to workplace sexual harassment and other sexual misconduct, the level of discipline should be determined only after fully investigating the specific nature and degree of each incident, whether the harm has been remedied, and whether the employee has shown remorse. In particular, the more public in nature the organization or the stronger its public character, the more it should emphasize high ethical standards and the duty to maintain dignity. At the same time, where dismissal is contemplated, it is necessary to carefully review the regulatory criteria on disciplinary severity and prior decisions and case law so that the disciplinary measure is not evaluated as markedly excessive by social standards.
In light of these points, in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases, it is important for both employees and employers, from the standpoint of preventing and responding to disputes, to seek assistance from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the appropriateness of the disciplinary severity.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of entering the women’s restroom constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity prescribed as a ground for discipline under Article 45(7) of the Personnel Management Regulations for Permanent Employees, etc. of the National Heritage Administration; therefore, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary severity
It is acknowledged that the employee engaged in inappropriate conduct by entering the women’s restroom and that his statements regarding the reason for entering have been inconsistent. However, in light of the fact that, at the grievance review committee and disciplinary committee convened by the employer and at our Commission’s hearing, the employee showed a remorseful attitude, recognizing that entering the women’s restroom was wrongful conduct, and that the victim of workplace sexual harassment with respect to this employee’s entry into the women’s restroo…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of entering the women’s restroom constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity prescribed as a ground for discipline under Article 45(7) of the Personnel Management Regulations for Permanent Employees, etc. of the National Heritage Administration; therefore, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary severity
It is acknowledged that the employee engaged in inappropriate conduct by entering the women’s restroom and that his statements regarding the reason for entering have been inconsistent. However, in light of the fact that, at the grievance review committee and disciplinary committee convened by the employer and at our Commission’s hearing, the employee showed a remorseful attitude, recognizing that entering the women’s restroom was wrongful conduct, and that the victim of workplace sexual harassment with respect to this employee’s entry into the women’s restroo… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (entering the women’s restroom), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to comply 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Change of Contractor)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (entering the women’s restroom) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Entering the Women’s Restroom).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “disciplinary severity (entering the women’s restroom).”
Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae409 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-28 · Case Result: Fully Upheld (Employee’s Claim)
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of entering the women’s restroom constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity, which is prescribed as a ground for discipline under Article 45(7) of the Personnel Management Regulations for Permanent Employees, etc. of the National Heritage Administration. Accordingly, grounds for discipline exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a permanent employee of a public institution was dismissed for disciplinary reasons on the ground that he entered the women’s restroom. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, which was contested before the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employee’s conduct violated the duty to maintain dignity under the Personnel Management Regulations for Permanent Employees, etc. of the National Heritage Administration, and, if so, whether dismissal was an appropriate level of discipline in light of that violation.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Even where an employee’s act of entering the women’s restroom constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity, can the Labor Relations Commission nonetheless find unfair dismissal on the ground of abuse of the employer’s discretion in determining the severity of discipline, taking into account the circumstances of the act, the employee’s post-incident attitude, and the victim’s wishes?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that the employee’s act of entering the women’s restroom in itself constitutes a ground for discipline as a violation of the duty to maintain dignity under the Personnel Management Regulations. However, in view of the following: during the grievance review committee, disciplinary committee, and the Commission’s own hearing, the employee acknowledged that his conduct was wrongful and showed remorse; and the victim of workplace sexual harassment expressed that she did not wish the employee to be separately disciplined solely for the act of entering the women’s restroom,
the Commission found that the dismissal in this case should be regarded as a sanction that is markedly excessive by social standards in light of the nature and degree of the misconduct, and thus constitutes a departure from and abuse of the employer’s discretion in determining disciplinary severity.
[Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning – Connection to Legal Principles]
The Labor Relations Commission premised its reasoning on the disciplinary severity criteria presented by the Supreme Court, namely that the employer’s business purpose and nature, the employee’s position and job duties, the motive, circumstances, and frequency of the misconduct, the impact on workplace order, and the employee’s past work attitude must all be considered comprehensively. On that premise, while recognizing that a high duty to maintain dignity is required of public institution employees, the Commission found that the conduct in this case did not reach the level of repeated or overt workplace sexual harassment that would render the work environment intolerably hostile. Taking into account the victim’s wishes, the employee’s remorse, and the availability of other sanctions, the Commission held that dismissal was objectively and clearly an excessively severe measure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to clearly recognize that conduct such as entering the women’s restroom, which can give rise to misunderstandings of a sexual nature, may itself constitute a violation of the duty to maintain dignity under internal regulations and thus a ground for discipline. However, when preparing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, employees should bear in mind that if they systematically substantiate the specific circumstances of the act, whether it was repeated, the victim’s wishes, and their own sincere remorse and commitment to preventing recurrence, there is room for the Labor Relations Commission to find that the level of discipline imposed was excessive.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, while a strict response is required to workplace sexual harassment and other sexual misconduct, the level of discipline should be determined only after fully investigating the specific nature and degree of each incident, whether the harm has been remedied, and whether the employee has shown remorse. In particular, the more public in nature the organization or the stronger its public character, the more it should emphasize high ethical standards and the duty to maintain dignity. At the same time, where dismissal is contemplated, it is necessary to carefully review the regulatory criteria on disciplinary severity and prior decisions and case law so that the disciplinary measure is not evaluated as markedly excessive by social standards.
In light of these points, in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases, it is important for both employees and employers, from the standpoint of preventing and responding to disputes, to seek assistance from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the appropriateness of the disciplinary severity.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of entering the women’s restroom constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity prescribed as a ground for discipline under Article 45(7) of the Personnel Management Regulations for Permanent Employees, etc. of the National Heritage Administration; therefore, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary severity
It is acknowledged that the employee engaged in inappropriate conduct by entering the women’s restroom and that his statements regarding the reason for entering have been inconsistent. However, in light of the fact that, at the grievance review committee and disciplinary committee convened by the employer and at our Commission’s hearing, the employee showed a remorseful attitude, recognizing that entering the women’s restroom was wrongful conduct, and that the victim of workplace sexual harassment with respect to this employee’s entry into the women’s restroo…
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of entering the women’s restroom constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity prescribed as a ground for discipline under Article 45(7) of the Personnel Management Regulations for Permanent Employees, etc. of the National Heritage Administration; therefore, grounds for discipline exist.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary severity
It is acknowledged that the employee engaged in inappropriate conduct by entering the women’s restroom and that his statements regarding the reason for entering have been inconsistent. However, in light of the fact that, at the grievance review committee and disciplinary committee convened by the employer and at our Commission’s hearing, the employee showed a remorseful attitude, recognizing that entering the women’s restroom was wrongful conduct, and that the victim of workplace sexual harassment with respect to this employee’s entry into the women’s restroo… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (entering the women’s restroom), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to comply 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Change of Contractor)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (entering the women’s restroom) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Entering the Women’s Restroom).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
