[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “level of discipline (workplace harassment).” Date of decision: 2026-07-29 · Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae1840 Summary of key issues: A. Whether each personnel order dated 7 January 2026, 13 January 2026, and 16 January 2026 constitutes disciplinary action, and whether such personnel orders are justified → Each personnel order does not constitute disciplinary action and is a legitimate personnel order. B. Whether the exclusion from duties and job suspension dated 9 March 2026 constitutes suspension from duty as a disciplinary measure, and whether such personnel order is justified → The exclusion from duties and job suspension does not constitute disciplinary suspension and is a legitimate personnel order based on the rules of employment. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case was contested before the Labor Relations Commission on the issue of whether a series of measures taken by the employer against the employee—multiple personnel orders, followed by exclusion from duties and job suspension, suspension from duty, and ultimately dismissal—were justified. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined (i) whether each personnel order constituted disciplinary action, and (ii) whether the suspension from duty based on workplace harassment and the dismissal based on a series of misconducts were justified disciplinary measures. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are whether, in connection with the suspension from duty and dismissal imposed for workplace harassment and other misconduct, (i) the preceding personnel orders and job suspension constitute disciplinary action, and (ii) the grounds, level, and procedures of the suspension from duty and dismissal satisfy the “just cause” requirement under the Labor Standards Act and the standards required by case law. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that the personnel orders dated 7 January, 13 January, and 16 January 2026 were exercises of ordinary managerial prerogative based on the rules of employment and personnel regulations, did not constitute disciplinary action, and were legitimate personnel orders made within the scope of business necessity and managerial discretion. It further found that the exclusion from duties and job suspension dated 9 March 2026 were also based on the rules of employment, constituted temporary and preventive measures, and did not amount to disciplinary suspension; that workplace harassment was objectively established so that grounds for disciplinary action existed for the suspension from duty dated 17 March 2026; and that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures. In light of the above, the Commission held that the employee’s workplace harassment and other series of misconduct seriously undermined workplace order and the relationship of trust; that even if some of the grounds for discipline were difficult to recognize independently, the totality of the misconduct, when viewed as a whole, reached a level at which continuation of the employment relationship would be difficult under social norms; and that the level of discipline could not be regarded as excessive in light of the scope permitted under the rules of employment and the principles of proportionality and equity established by case law. On this basis, the Commission determined that the dismissal in this case was justified and did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that workplace harassment, verbal or physical abuse of superiors or colleagues, and repeated refusal to comply with work instructions may be assessed not as isolated incidents but as accumulated misconduct, which may ultimately justify dismissal. It should also be remembered that exclusion from duties or job suspension cannot be immediately deemed disciplinary action; where such measures are recognized as personnel orders based on the rules of employment, it is more appropriate to contest the necessity of the measures and whether they constitute an abuse of authority, rather than to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, in responding to workplace harassment and other misconduct, it is necessary to take step-by-step measures such as fact-finding, protective measures for the victim, and separation of the alleged perpetrator (exclusion from duties, job suspension), while clearly defining the legal nature of each measure (whether it is a personnel order or disciplinary action) and its basis in the rules of employment. When imposing severe disciplinary measures such as suspension from duty or dismissal, the employer should specifically identify the grounds for discipline, strictly comply with procedures such as proper composition of the disciplinary committee and providing the employee with an opportunity to be heard, and, where multiple instances of misconduct are combined, prepare written documentation analyzing whether, taken as a whole, the conduct makes it difficult to maintain the employment relationship under social norms. In this type of case, for the Labor Relations Commission to recognize the justifiability of disciplinary action, it is crucial in practice to clearly set out in the rules of employment and collective agreements the provisions on discipline and personnel orders, and to systematically prepare materials that can prove the existence of grounds for discipline, the lawfulness of the procedures, and the proportionality of the level of discipline. 2. Matters Determined A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was determined that each personnel order was justified, and that the grounds, level, and procedures of the suspension from duty and dismissal were justified, thereby constituting lawful disciplinary action. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Whether each personnel order dated 7 January 2026, 13 January 2026, and 16 January 2026 constitutes disciplinary action, and whether such personnel orders are justified → Each personnel order does not constitute disciplinary action and is a legitimate personnel order. B. Whether the exclusion from duties and job suspension dated 9 March 2026 constitutes suspension from duty as a disciplinary measure, and whether such personnel order is justified → The exclusion from duties and job suspension do not constitute disciplinary suspension and are legitimate personnel orders based on the rules of employment. C. Justifiability of the suspension from duty dated 17 March 2026 → As the ground for discipline, namely workplace harassment, is recognized, the level of discipline is appropriate and, there being no defect in the disciplinary procedures, the measure constitutes justified disciplinary action. D. Justifiability of the dismissal dated 20 April 2026 → Even if some of the grounds for discipline are difficult to recognize independently, when the employee’s series of misconduct is considered in its entirety, it is determined that the employment relationship cannot be maintained, and the level of discipline is deemed appropriate. [See More Related Decisions] - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Excessive Level of Discipline (Negligent Supervision and Management)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Level of Discipline (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, level of discipline (workplace harassment), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Existence of Dismissal (Concurrent Childcare Leave and Industrial Accident Medical Care)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to level of discipline (workplace harassment) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Level of Discipline (Workplace Harassment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article