[Case Information] This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “discipline and job transfer (separation measures for a workplace harassment perpetrator).” Decision date: 2026-09-08 · Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해293 Key issue summary: a. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, workplace harassment became an issue, and the employee was given a one‑month wage reduction as a disciplinary sanction, together with a job transfer (change of workplace and duties). The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking relief on the grounds of unfair dismissal and unfair personnel appointment. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission found both the disciplinary sanction and the job transfer to be justified, and accordingly dismissed the employee’s application for relief. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether a wage reduction imposed as discipline for workplace harassment and a job transfer implemented to separate the employee from the victim are justified in terms of the grounds for discipline, the level of disciplinary sanction, the procedures followed, and the exercise of managerial prerogative in personnel matters. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case held that, in light of the complainant’s and witnesses’ statements and the workplace harassment investigation report, the misconduct constituting workplace harassment was established; that the misconduct was sufficiently serious such that, under the disciplinary sanction standards, a one‑month wage reduction was not excessive by social norms; and that the disciplinary procedures were carried out in accordance with the procedures set forth in the personnel regulations, with no material defects apparent. On this basis, the panel found the disciplinary sanction to be justified. The panel further held that there was a business necessity for the job transfer in order to protect and separate the victim of workplace harassment; that although the job transfer caused the employee some disadvantages in daily life, these did not appear to exceed the scope ordinarily to be borne by an employee; and that, even if no prior consultation procedure was conducted, that fact alone did not amount to an abuse or deviation of the employer’s discretionary authority in personnel matters. On these grounds, the panel also found the job transfer to be justified. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, if workplace harassment is found to be established, not only disciplinary measures such as wage reduction but also job transfer measures for the protection of the victim may be implemented together. In addition, where the level of disciplinary sanction cannot readily be regarded as manifestly unreasonable by social norms and the procedures have been conducted in accordance with the rules of employment and personnel regulations, it is difficult to have such measures overturned by the Labor Relations Commission. It is therefore important, at the initial investigation stage, to fully explain the facts and any extenuating circumstances. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to document the workplace harassment investigation process clearly, and to ensure that the misconduct is objectively established through the complainant’s and witnesses’ statements and the investigation report. The level of disciplinary sanction should be aligned with the internal disciplinary standards, while taking into account the nature and degree of the misconduct and the risk of recurrence, so that it is not excessive by social norms. For job transfer measures taken to separate the victim, the reasons should be organized so that the business necessity and the balance with any disadvantages in the employee’s daily life are apparent. When seeking assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, in cases of this type, it is very helpful for issue management to thoroughly review the legal principles on unfair dismissal, redundancy dismissal, and the level of disciplinary sanctions, and to systematically organize the investigation materials, written statements, and personnel regulations to be submitted to the Labor Relations Commission. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that there were grounds for discipline, that the level of disciplinary sanction was appropriate, and that there were no material defects in the disciplinary procedures, so the disciplinary sanction was justified; and that there was a business necessity for the job transfer, and although some disadvantages in the employee’s daily life were recognized, these remained within the scope ordinarily to be borne by an employee. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Justification of the Disciplinary Sanction In light of the complainant’s and witnesses’ statements and the workplace harassment investigation report, the grounds for discipline based on workplace harassment were established, and those grounds were sufficiently serious to constitute grave misconduct. Accordingly, the one‑month wage reduction (30,000 KRW) imposed in accordance with the disciplinary sanction standards was appropriate. As the disciplinary procedures appear to have been conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the personnel regulations, and no other defects are apparent, the disciplinary sanction is justified. b. Justification of the Job Transfer Because the applicant’s misconduct constituted workplace harassment, it was necessary to separate the applicant from the victim, and thus a business necessity for the job transfer was recognized. Although some disadvantages in the employee’s daily life were acknowledged, they did not exceed the degree ordinarily to be borne. Even though no prior consultation procedure was conducted, that circumstance alone does not make it reasonable to view the employer as having deviated from or abused its discretionary authority in personnel matters. Therefore, the job transfer in this case is justified. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction Level (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, discipline and job transfer (separation measures for workplace harassment perpetrator), 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&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Voluntary Resignation Letter)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to discipline and job transfer (separation measures for workplace harassment perpetrator) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Discipline and Job Transfer (Separation Measures for Workplace Harassment Perpetrator)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article