[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “appropriateness of disciplinary sanctions (Head of Finance Division – workplace bullying).” Date of decision: 2026-09-15 · Labor Relations Commission: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae3258 Summary of key issues: A. Whether grounds for discipline are established: It was confirmed that the employee engaged in workplace bullying and sexual harassment of staff, made inappropriate remarks and behaved in ways that harmed harmony among employees, violated the chain of command, and interfered with business. These acts were recognized as disciplinary grounds attributable to the employee. B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate: (1) The employee’s repeated inappropriate remarks and conduct toward staff over several months were fully capable of worsening the working environment and could not be regarded as minor. (2) As Head of the Finance Division, the employee used his/her superior status and position to commit various acts of misconduct, which entails heavier responsibility than if the same or similar acts had been committed by ordinary employees. (3) Three employees resigned due to the employee’s inappropriate remarks and conduct, and the misconduct had a significant adverse impact on the operation and organizational order of a small-scale workplace. In light of these factors, a two‑month suspension from duty could not be viewed as an unlawful or unjust disposition that abused the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee serving as Head of the Finance Division received a disciplinary sanction of a two‑month suspension from duty on the grounds of workplace bullying and sexual harassment, violation of the chain of command, interference with business, and other misconduct. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the suspension constituted an unfair disciplinary measure equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and rendered a decision in favor of the employer. In doing so, the Commission applied legal principles regarding the criteria for determining unfair dismissal and the limits of discretion in imposing discipline. This case therefore serves as an important reference in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where an employee serving as Head of the Finance Division repeatedly engaged over several months in workplace bullying, sexual harassment, and other inappropriate conduct, and violated the chain of command, the disciplinary sanction of a two‑month suspension from duty was justified in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) level of discipline, and (iii) disciplinary procedures. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employee repeatedly engaged in conduct and made remarks toward staff that constituted workplace bullying and sexual harassment, made inappropriate remarks and engaged in conduct that undermined harmony among employees, violated the chain of command, and interfered with business. It further noted that, as Head of the Finance Division, the employee used his/her superior status and position to commit misconduct and therefore bore heavier responsibility than ordinary employees, and that the misconduct had a serious adverse impact on organizational order and the working environment of a small workplace, as evidenced by the resignation of three employees due to such conduct. On this basis, the panel held that the dismissal‑type disciplinary measure in this case was supported by established grounds for discipline, that the nature and degree of the misconduct were not minor, that the level of discipline—a two‑month suspension from duty—could not readily be regarded as manifestly unreasonable by social standards, and that there was no indication that the employer violated the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment, given that the employee was afforded an opportunity to explain his/her position regarding the grounds for discipline. Accordingly, the panel determined that the two‑month suspension from duty fell within the scope of discretion granted to the disciplinary authority, and that the grounds, level, and procedures of discipline were all justified. The measure therefore did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that acts such as workplace bullying and sexual harassment, and violations of the chain of command, are not mere conflicts but can constitute serious disciplinary grounds that significantly disrupt corporate order. In particular, the higher one’s position—such as in managerial, supervisory, or division‑head roles—the heavier the responsibility that will be recognized for the same conduct. Furthermore, where inappropriate remarks and conduct are repeated over several months and lead to concrete consequences such as the resignation of multiple employees, even severe disciplinary measures such as suspension from duty may be upheld as justified by the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to systematically collect and preserve evidence—such as written statements, audio recordings, and messenger records—so that facts relating to workplace bullying, sexual harassment, conduct undermining harmony, violations of the chain of command, and interference with business can be objectively proven. In addition, if the rules of employment clearly set out the grounds and procedures for discipline, and the employer faithfully complies with procedures such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing the employee with an opportunity to explain his/her position, there is a higher likelihood that even severe disciplinary measures such as suspension or dismissal will be found justified by the Labor Relations Commission. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was determined that the grounds, level, and procedures of discipline were all justified. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether grounds for discipline are established Since it was confirmed that the employee engaged in workplace bullying and sexual harassment of staff, made inappropriate remarks and behaved in ways that harmed harmony among employees, and violated the chain of command and interfered with business, these acts were recognized as disciplinary grounds attributable to the employee. B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate (1) The employee’s repeated inappropriate remarks and conduct toward staff over several months were fully capable of worsening the working environment and could not be regarded as minor. (2) As Head of the Finance Division, the employee used his/her superior status and position to commit various acts of misconduct, which entails heavier responsibility than if the same or similar acts had been committed by ordinary employees. (3) Three employees resigned due to the employee’s inappropriate remarks and conduct, and the misconduct had a significant impact on the operation and organizational order of a small‑scale workplace. In light of these factors, the two‑month suspension from duty could not be viewed as an unlawful or unjust disposition that abused the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority. C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful The employee was given an opportunity to explain his/her position regarding the grounds for discipline, and there was no indication that the employer violated the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanctions (Participation in Outsourced Work for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, appropriateness of disciplinary sanctions (Head of Finance Division – workplace bullying), workplace bullying, 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&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Justifiability of Transfer (Abolition of Night‑Shift Department)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to appropriateness of disciplinary sanctions (Head of Finance Division – workplace bullying) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanctions (Head of Finance Division – Workplace Bullying).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article