[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the initial ruling was upheld on the issue of “disciplinary severity (workplace bullying and sexual harassment).” Decision date: 2026-09-04 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae483 Key issue summary: A. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee’s remarks to Victim Employees 1 and 2 exceeded the socially accepted scope of work and, in light of the sound common sense and experience of the average person, were all recognized as workplace bullying and sexual harassment causing sexual discomfort. Accordingly, they constituted just cause for discipline. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline The employee, who held a higher position in the company, caused physical and mental suffering and deterioration of the working environment for lower-ranking Victim Employees 1 and 2… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns a worker who was dismissed for making workplace bullying and sexual harassment remarks and who filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, which was contested before the Central Labor Relations Commission. The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The key issue in this case is: “In a disciplinary dismissal based on workplace bullying and sexual harassment remarks made by a superior to subordinates, whether grounds for discipline exist and whether the level of discipline constitutes unfair dismissal by being markedly unreasonable in light of social norms, and whether there were defects in the disciplinary procedures, such as long-term exclusion from work.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case found that the employee’s remarks to Victim Employees 1 and 2 exceeded the socially acceptable scope of work and, in light of the sound common sense of the average person, constituted workplace bullying and sexual harassment causing sexual discomfort; that the higher-ranking employee caused physical and mental suffering and deterioration of the working environment for the lower-ranking victim employees; and that the employee showed no remorse, going beyond the exercise of the right to defense to disparage the victims’ reports as “eul-jil” (abuse of power by a weaker party). In light of these factors, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was based on established grounds for discipline, and that, given the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, it was difficult to view the level of discipline as having clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms. Considering also that the employer conducted an investigation through an external investigative agency and provided the employee with an opportunity to explain during the disciplinary committee process, the Commission found no material defects in the disciplinary procedures. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it must be clearly recognized that workplace bullying and sexual harassment remarks are not mere mistakes or jokes, but serious misconduct that can justify disciplinary dismissal. In particular, superiors should bear in mind that their position and influence may operate to their disadvantage in determining the level of discipline, and that continued victim-blaming or a lack of remorse after the incident can be viewed very unfavorably by the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when workplace bullying or sexual harassment occurs, it is important to follow an objective investigation process, such as using an external investigative agency, and to provide all parties with sufficient opportunity to explain their positions during that process. In addition, employers should pre-establish work rules and disciplinary guidelines, and, in cases of misconduct by superiors, determine the level of discipline by comprehensively considering the victims’ status, whether the conduct was repeated, and whether the offender shows remorse. By doing so, employers can better prepare to avoid a finding by the Labor Relations Commission that they have abused their discretion in imposing discipline. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission found that grounds for discipline existed, that the level of discipline was appropriate in light of the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, and that the disciplinary procedures were lawful. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee’s remarks to Victim Employees 1 and 2 exceeded the socially acceptable scope of work and, in light of the sound common sense and experience of the average person, were all recognized as workplace bullying and sexual harassment causing sexual discomfort. Accordingly, they constituted just cause for discipline. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline The employee, who held a higher position in the company, caused physical and mental suffering and deterioration of the working environment for lower-ranking Victim Employees 1 and 2, and both the workplace bullying and sexual harassment were recognized as just grounds for discipline. In addition, the employee showed no remorse, going beyond the exercise of the right to defense to describe the victim employees’ reports as “eul-jil” (abuse of power by a weaker party). In light of these factors, it is difficult to find that the employer abused its discretion in determining the level of discipline. c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures The employee argued that, in relation to the disciplinary procedures, the employer isolated the employee from work for as long as three months and placed the employee in an unstable position after the workplace bullying and other conduct were reported. However, this period corresponds to the time required to conduct an investigation into the reported facts by appointing an external investigative agency. It appears that the employee was given sufficient opportunity to explain the specific misconduct during the external agency’s investigation and before the disciplinary committee. Accordingly, it is difficult to find any procedural defect in the disciplinary process. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Failure of Management and Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (workplace bullying and sexual harassment), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, 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 Case on ‘Agreement on Contract Period (Signature on Third Employment Contract)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (workplace bullying and sexual harassment) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Bullying and Sexual Harassment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article