Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Expansion of Confidentiality Obligations (Labor Union Email)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 147)
- Date2026/01/25 04:13
- Read 234
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “Expansion of Confidentiality Obligations (Labor Union Email).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9036 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.24 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: Article 9 of the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines imposes a duty of confidentiality on “investigators,” such as grievance counselors, and there is no provision extending the same duty to the “perpetrator.” Accordingly, it is difficult to view that a duty of confidentiality was directly imposed on the employee. The email the employee sent to the branch head of the labor union was defensive in nature, relating to post‑measures concerning workplace harassment, and it was difficult to find any intent of deliberate disclosure or external dissemination. Therefore, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer imposed disciplinary measures and dismissed the employee on the ground of an alleged breach of the confidentiality obligation under the company’s Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal.
During the handling of a workplace harassment case, the employee sent a related email to the branch head of the labor union. The employer asserted that this constituted a breach of the confidentiality obligation and therefore a ground for discipline. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of that assertion.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are:
“Whether the confidentiality obligation under the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines, which is imposed only on ‘investigators,’ can be extended to the employee as the alleged ‘perpetrator’ and be used as a ground for discipline and dismissal, and whether the email sent to the branch head of the labor union constitutes a breach of that confidentiality obligation.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found as follows: Article 9 of the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines imposes a duty of confidentiality only on “investigators,” such as grievance counselors, and there is no provision imposing the same duty on the employee as the “perpetrator.” Thus, it is difficult to regard the employee as being directly bound by a duty of confidentiality.
The email the employee sent to the branch head of the labor union was a defensive communication related to post‑measures concerning workplace harassment, and it was difficult to find any intent of deliberate disclosure or external dissemination. Furthermore, using the confidentiality undertaking as a basis to extend the obligation, which the Guidelines place on investigators, to the perpetrator exceeds both the wording and the purpose of the Guidelines and appears excessive.
In light of these points, the Commission held that the employee’s act of sending the email did not constitute a breach of the confidentiality obligation under the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines.
The dismissal in this case was therefore found to be unfair, as the alleged ground for discipline—violation of the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines—was not established.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important first to check to whom, and to what extent, the company’s Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines or confidentiality provisions actually apply, and then to exercise your right of defense without exceeding that scope. In particular, raising issues or communicating for defensive purposes through legitimate channels—such as the labor union or officially designated grievance handling channels—can, in principle, be protected. You should therefore clearly state the purpose of such communications and limit and record the scope of recipients.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when establishing Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines, you should clearly define the subjects, scope, and exceptions (e.g., legitimate reporting/consultation to unions, Labor Relations Commissions, investigative authorities) of any confidentiality obligations. If you rely solely on a confidentiality undertaking to extend obligations not provided for in the rules to employees and then use such extended obligations as grounds for discipline or dismissal, there is a high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find the dismissal unfair. Before imposing discipline, you should carefully examine whether the obligation has been clearly imposed on the employee based on the rules of employment or guidelines, and whether the employee’s conduct in fact constitutes “external dissemination.”
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Article 9 of the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines imposes a duty of confidentiality on “investigators,” such as grievance counselors, and there is no provision extending the same duty to the “perpetrator.” Thus, it is difficult to view that a duty of confidentiality was directly imposed on the employee. The email the employee sent to the branch head of the labor union was defensive in nature, relating to post‑measures concerning workplace harassment, and it is difficult to find any intent of deliberate disclosure or external dissemination. The confidentiality undertaking cannot serve as a basis for extending the obligation imposed on investigators under the Guidelines to the perpetrator, and imposing a duty of confidentiality on the perpetrator would exceed the wording and purpose of the rules and appears excessive.
In light of these points, the act of sending an email concerning the workplace harassment case to the branch head of the labor union does not constitute a breach of the confidentiality obligation under the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines, and therefore no ground for discipline against the employee exists.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
Article 9 of the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines imposes a duty of confidentiality on “investigators,” such as grievance counselors, and there is no provision extending the same duty to the “perpetrator.” Thus, it is difficult to view that a duty of confidentiality was directly imposed on the employee. The email the employee sent to the branch head of the labor union was defensive in nature, relating to post‑measures concerning workplace harassment, and it is difficult to find any intent of deliberate disclosure or external dissemination. The confidentiality undertaking cannot serve as a basis for extending the obligation imposed on investigators under the Guidelines to the perpetrator, and imposing a duty of confidentiality on the perpetrator would exceed the wording and purpose of the rules and appears excessive.
In light of these points, the act of sending an email concerning the workplace harassment case to the branch head of the labor union does not constitute a breach of the confidentiality obligation under the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines, and therefore no ground for discipline against the employee exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Employer Status (Directly Managed vs. Outsourced On‑Site Security)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Employee Status·Written Notice (Head of Division with High Salary)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Expansion of confidentiality obligations (labor union email), Workplace harassment, Company policy violation · Non‑compliance with work instructions, Disciplinary dismissal, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Employee Status·Written Notice (Head of Division with High Salary)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to Expansion of Confidentiality Obligations (Labor Union Email) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Expansion of Confidentiality Obligations (Labor Union Email).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “Expansion of Confidentiality Obligations (Labor Union Email).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9036 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.24 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: Article 9 of the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines imposes a duty of confidentiality on “investigators,” such as grievance counselors, and there is no provision extending the same duty to the “perpetrator.” Accordingly, it is difficult to view that a duty of confidentiality was directly imposed on the employee. The email the employee sent to the branch head of the labor union was defensive in nature, relating to post‑measures concerning workplace harassment, and it was difficult to find any intent of deliberate disclosure or external dissemination. Therefore, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer imposed disciplinary measures and dismissed the employee on the ground of an alleged breach of the confidentiality obligation under the company’s Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal.
During the handling of a workplace harassment case, the employee sent a related email to the branch head of the labor union. The employer asserted that this constituted a breach of the confidentiality obligation and therefore a ground for discipline. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of that assertion.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are:
“Whether the confidentiality obligation under the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines, which is imposed only on ‘investigators,’ can be extended to the employee as the alleged ‘perpetrator’ and be used as a ground for discipline and dismissal, and whether the email sent to the branch head of the labor union constitutes a breach of that confidentiality obligation.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found as follows: Article 9 of the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines imposes a duty of confidentiality only on “investigators,” such as grievance counselors, and there is no provision imposing the same duty on the employee as the “perpetrator.” Thus, it is difficult to regard the employee as being directly bound by a duty of confidentiality.
The email the employee sent to the branch head of the labor union was a defensive communication related to post‑measures concerning workplace harassment, and it was difficult to find any intent of deliberate disclosure or external dissemination. Furthermore, using the confidentiality undertaking as a basis to extend the obligation, which the Guidelines place on investigators, to the perpetrator exceeds both the wording and the purpose of the Guidelines and appears excessive.
In light of these points, the Commission held that the employee’s act of sending the email did not constitute a breach of the confidentiality obligation under the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines.
The dismissal in this case was therefore found to be unfair, as the alleged ground for discipline—violation of the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines—was not established.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important first to check to whom, and to what extent, the company’s Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines or confidentiality provisions actually apply, and then to exercise your right of defense without exceeding that scope. In particular, raising issues or communicating for defensive purposes through legitimate channels—such as the labor union or officially designated grievance handling channels—can, in principle, be protected. You should therefore clearly state the purpose of such communications and limit and record the scope of recipients.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when establishing Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines, you should clearly define the subjects, scope, and exceptions (e.g., legitimate reporting/consultation to unions, Labor Relations Commissions, investigative authorities) of any confidentiality obligations. If you rely solely on a confidentiality undertaking to extend obligations not provided for in the rules to employees and then use such extended obligations as grounds for discipline or dismissal, there is a high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find the dismissal unfair. Before imposing discipline, you should carefully examine whether the obligation has been clearly imposed on the employee based on the rules of employment or guidelines, and whether the employee’s conduct in fact constitutes “external dissemination.”
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Article 9 of the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines imposes a duty of confidentiality on “investigators,” such as grievance counselors, and there is no provision extending the same duty to the “perpetrator.” Thus, it is difficult to view that a duty of confidentiality was directly imposed on the employee. The email the employee sent to the branch head of the labor union was defensive in nature, relating to post‑measures concerning workplace harassment, and it is difficult to find any intent of deliberate disclosure or external dissemination. The confidentiality undertaking cannot serve as a basis for extending the obligation imposed on investigators under the Guidelines to the perpetrator, and imposing a duty of confidentiality on the perpetrator would exceed the wording and purpose of the rules and appears excessive.
In light of these points, the act of sending an email concerning the workplace harassment case to the branch head of the labor union does not constitute a breach of the confidentiality obligation under the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines, and therefore no ground for discipline against the employee exists.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
Article 9 of the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines imposes a duty of confidentiality on “investigators,” such as grievance counselors, and there is no provision extending the same duty to the “perpetrator.” Thus, it is difficult to view that a duty of confidentiality was directly imposed on the employee. The email the employee sent to the branch head of the labor union was defensive in nature, relating to post‑measures concerning workplace harassment, and it is difficult to find any intent of deliberate disclosure or external dissemination. The confidentiality undertaking cannot serve as a basis for extending the obligation imposed on investigators under the Guidelines to the perpetrator, and imposing a duty of confidentiality on the perpetrator would exceed the wording and purpose of the rules and appears excessive.
In light of these points, the act of sending an email concerning the workplace harassment case to the branch head of the labor union does not constitute a breach of the confidentiality obligation under the Workplace Harassment Prevention Guidelines, and therefore no ground for discipline against the employee exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Employer Status (Directly Managed vs. Outsourced On‑Site Security)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Employee Status·Written Notice (Head of Division with High Salary)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Expansion of confidentiality obligations (labor union email), Workplace harassment, Company policy violation · Non‑compliance with work instructions, Disciplinary dismissal, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Employee Status·Written Notice (Head of Division with High Salary)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to Expansion of Confidentiality Obligations (Labor Union Email) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Expansion of Confidentiality Obligations (Labor Union Email).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
