[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (muttered profanity).” Decision date: 2026-06-29 · Decision body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae624 Key issue summary: A. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee uttered profanity as a muttered remark, but it was loud enough to be heard by those nearby and was therefore evaluated as conduct damaging to the dignity of an employee, so that grounds for discipline were found to exist. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee muttered profanity while on duty. The company regarded this as conduct damaging to the dignity of an employee, convened a disciplinary committee, and imposed a reprimand. The employee filed a relief application with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the disciplinary measure was an unfair personnel action equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered its decision under Case No. 2026Buhae624. This case illustrates how the Labor Relations Commission viewed not only the existence of unfair dismissal, but also whether there was an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority, and how the legal principles on disciplinary severity and disciplinary procedures—issues frequently handled in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&—were applied. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are whether the employee’s muttered profanity constitutes grounds for discipline, whether the resulting reprimand constitutes a determination of disciplinary severity that is markedly unreasonable by social standards, and whether there were any serious defects in the disciplinary procedures. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that, although the employee’s profanity took the form of a muttered remark, it was uttered loudly enough to be heard by those nearby and could therefore be evaluated as conduct damaging to the dignity of an employee; that the reprimand was recorded only in the personnel file and did not result in any substantive loss such as restrictions on promotion or wage reduction, making it difficult to conclude that the disciplinary measure was markedly unreasonable by social standards; and that, prior to convening the disciplinary committee, the employee was given notice to appear and an opportunity to explain, and no objective defect in the composition of the committee was proven. Accordingly, the Commission found that there was no dismissal in this case, and that the reprimand at issue was justified in terms of the grounds for discipline, the severity of the discipline, and the disciplinary procedures. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, rather than simply thinking “it was just talking to myself, so there is no problem,” it should be borne in mind that profanity or vulgar expressions uttered loudly enough for colleagues nearby to hear may constitute a breach of the duty to maintain the company’s dignity and thus become grounds for discipline. In addition, even a minor disciplinary measure such as a reprimand remains in the personnel record. Therefore, when appearing before a disciplinary committee, it is advisable to explain in detail the facts, circumstances, and mitigating factors (such as the incidental nature of the conduct and the minor nature of any harm) in order to minimize future disadvantages. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is helpful, in order to reduce disputes over abuse of disciplinary authority, to clearly specify in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the types of conduct that constitute grounds for discipline and the types of disciplinary measures, and, as in this case, to give priority to minor disciplinary measures such as reprimands or warnings for relatively minor misconduct. In addition, employers should document procedural requirements such as notice to appear prior to discipline, the granting of an opportunity to explain, and the composition of the disciplinary committee, so that at the Labor Relations Commission stage they can substantiate not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the appropriateness of the disciplinary severity and the legality of the procedures. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the fact that the employee used profanity was acknowledged, grounds for discipline were found to exist, and the reprimand was held to be a proper exercise of the employer’s discretion without abuse of disciplinary authority and free of defects in the disciplinary procedures. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline Although the employee uttered profanity as a muttered remark, it was loud enough to be heard by those nearby and was therefore evaluated as conduct damaging to the dignity of an employee, so grounds for discipline were found to exist. B. Appropriateness of the Disciplinary Severity Given that the reprimand was recorded only in the personnel file and did not result in substantive loss such as disadvantages in promotion or wage reduction, it is difficult to regard it as markedly unreasonable by social standards or as an abuse of the discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority. C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures Prior to convening the disciplinary committee, the employer delivered a notice to appear to the employee and provided an opportunity to explain, and there is no evidence of any objective defect in the composition of the disciplinary committee. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were found to be lawful. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Outsourced Work for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management/Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (muttered profanity), disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary measures), violation of company policy · noncompliance 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Requirements for Application of the Law (Business with Four Employees)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (muttered profanity) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Muttered Profanity).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article