Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning “Disciplinary Dismissal and Level of Sanction (Combined Misconduct of Negligence of Duty and Sexual Harassment)” (Unfair Dismissal 231)
- Date2026/02/24 04:09
- Read 220
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal and level of sanction (combined misconduct of negligence of duty and sexual harassment).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9268 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.27 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline exist
① Negligence of duty, ② non-compliance with work orders, ③ violation of the duty of mutual respect, and ④ sexual harassment were all recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of disciplinary sanction was appropriate
Given that the recognized grounds for discipline were highly diverse and serious, the level of sanction in the form of dismissal could not be deemed an abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
No defect was found in the disciplinary procedure.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the company imposed disciplinary dismissal on an employee on grounds including negligence of duty, non-compliance with work orders, violation of the duty of mutual respect, and sexual harassment. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. After examining the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of sanction, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer. This decision can be regarded as a meaningful precedent that may be referred to when providing advice in similar cases at Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where multiple acts of misconduct such as negligence of duty, non-compliance with work orders, violation of the duty of mutual respect, and sexual harassment exist in combination, disciplinary dismissal based on these acts constitutes just cause for discipline, and whether the level of dismissal is so excessively harsh by social standards as to amount to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that the employee’s negligence of duty was objectively established, that the employee failed without justifiable reason to comply with legitimate work-related orders, that the employee violated the duty of mutual respect in relationships with colleagues and superiors, and that conduct amounting to workplace sexual harassment was confirmed.
In light of the fact that the employee’s conduct fell under the grounds for discipline stipulated in the work rules and amounted to a violation of corporate order to such a degree that it was difficult, by social standards, to continue the employment relationship; that the grounds for discipline were not singular but consisted of multiple serious acts of differing nature, making the overall level of misconduct grave; and that, under the principles articulated by the Supreme Court and the Central Labor Relations Commission, various allegations of misconduct must be considered comprehensively when determining the level of disciplinary sanction,
the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was based on existing grounds for disciplinary dismissal, that the level of sanction could not be viewed as excessively harsh to the extent of constituting a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, and that there were no particular defects in the disciplinary procedure. Accordingly, the dismissal could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that negligence of duty, repeated non-compliance with work orders, insults or abusive language toward colleagues or superiors constituting a violation of the duty of mutual respect, and workplace sexual harassment can each individually constitute grounds for discipline, and when they occur in combination, may justify disciplinary dismissal. In particular, where sexual harassment seriously deteriorates the working environment, disciplinary dismissal is readily justified according to the consistent position of the Supreme Court and the Labor Relations Commissions. Employees should therefore familiarize themselves with relevant training and regulations and exercise particular care in managing their words and conduct in the workplace.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate negligence of duty, violation of work orders, violation of the duty of mutual respect, and sexual harassment as explicit grounds for discipline in the work rules and personnel regulations, and to strictly comply with disciplinary procedures such as obtaining a resolution of the disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity for the employee to present explanations. In determining the level of disciplinary sanction, the company should not examine each act of misconduct in isolation, but should comprehensively record and assess the content, frequency, and severity of multiple acts of misconduct, their impact on corporate order, and the nature of the employee’s duties, so as to accumulate evidence demonstrating that dismissal cannot be regarded as conspicuously excessive by social standards.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline exist
① Negligence of duty, ② non-compliance with work orders, ③ violation of the duty of mutual respect, and ④ sexual harassment were all recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of disciplinary sanction was appropriate
Given that the recognized grounds for discipline were highly diverse and serious, the level of sanction in the form of dismissal could not be deemed an abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
No defect was found in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline exist
① Negligence of duty, ② non-compliance with work orders, ③ violation of the duty of mutual respect, and ④ sexual harassment were all recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of disciplinary sanction was appropriate
Given that the recognized grounds for discipline were highly diverse and serious, the level of sanction in the form of dismissal could not be deemed an abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
No defect was found in the disciplinary procedure.
/
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Notice of Reserved Transfer)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal and level of sanction (combined misconduct of negligence of duty and sexual harassment), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work orders, sexual 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Notice of Reserved Transfer)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal and level of sanction (combined misconduct of negligence of duty and sexual harassment) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal and Level of Sanction (Combined Misconduct of Negligence of Duty and Sexual Harassment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal and level of sanction (combined misconduct of negligence of duty and sexual harassment).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9268 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.27 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline exist
① Negligence of duty, ② non-compliance with work orders, ③ violation of the duty of mutual respect, and ④ sexual harassment were all recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of disciplinary sanction was appropriate
Given that the recognized grounds for discipline were highly diverse and serious, the level of sanction in the form of dismissal could not be deemed an abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
No defect was found in the disciplinary procedure.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the company imposed disciplinary dismissal on an employee on grounds including negligence of duty, non-compliance with work orders, violation of the duty of mutual respect, and sexual harassment. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. After examining the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of sanction, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer. This decision can be regarded as a meaningful precedent that may be referred to when providing advice in similar cases at Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where multiple acts of misconduct such as negligence of duty, non-compliance with work orders, violation of the duty of mutual respect, and sexual harassment exist in combination, disciplinary dismissal based on these acts constitutes just cause for discipline, and whether the level of dismissal is so excessively harsh by social standards as to amount to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that the employee’s negligence of duty was objectively established, that the employee failed without justifiable reason to comply with legitimate work-related orders, that the employee violated the duty of mutual respect in relationships with colleagues and superiors, and that conduct amounting to workplace sexual harassment was confirmed.
In light of the fact that the employee’s conduct fell under the grounds for discipline stipulated in the work rules and amounted to a violation of corporate order to such a degree that it was difficult, by social standards, to continue the employment relationship; that the grounds for discipline were not singular but consisted of multiple serious acts of differing nature, making the overall level of misconduct grave; and that, under the principles articulated by the Supreme Court and the Central Labor Relations Commission, various allegations of misconduct must be considered comprehensively when determining the level of disciplinary sanction,
the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was based on existing grounds for disciplinary dismissal, that the level of sanction could not be viewed as excessively harsh to the extent of constituting a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, and that there were no particular defects in the disciplinary procedure. Accordingly, the dismissal could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that negligence of duty, repeated non-compliance with work orders, insults or abusive language toward colleagues or superiors constituting a violation of the duty of mutual respect, and workplace sexual harassment can each individually constitute grounds for discipline, and when they occur in combination, may justify disciplinary dismissal. In particular, where sexual harassment seriously deteriorates the working environment, disciplinary dismissal is readily justified according to the consistent position of the Supreme Court and the Labor Relations Commissions. Employees should therefore familiarize themselves with relevant training and regulations and exercise particular care in managing their words and conduct in the workplace.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate negligence of duty, violation of work orders, violation of the duty of mutual respect, and sexual harassment as explicit grounds for discipline in the work rules and personnel regulations, and to strictly comply with disciplinary procedures such as obtaining a resolution of the disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity for the employee to present explanations. In determining the level of disciplinary sanction, the company should not examine each act of misconduct in isolation, but should comprehensively record and assess the content, frequency, and severity of multiple acts of misconduct, their impact on corporate order, and the nature of the employee’s duties, so as to accumulate evidence demonstrating that dismissal cannot be regarded as conspicuously excessive by social standards.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline exist
① Negligence of duty, ② non-compliance with work orders, ③ violation of the duty of mutual respect, and ④ sexual harassment were all recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of disciplinary sanction was appropriate
Given that the recognized grounds for discipline were highly diverse and serious, the level of sanction in the form of dismissal could not be deemed an abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
No defect was found in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline exist
① Negligence of duty, ② non-compliance with work orders, ③ violation of the duty of mutual respect, and ④ sexual harassment were all recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of disciplinary sanction was appropriate
Given that the recognized grounds for discipline were highly diverse and serious, the level of sanction in the form of dismissal could not be deemed an abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
No defect was found in the disciplinary procedure.
/
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Notice of Reserved Transfer)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal and level of sanction (combined misconduct of negligence of duty and sexual harassment), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work orders, sexual 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Notice of Reserved Transfer)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal and level of sanction (combined misconduct of negligence of duty and sexual harassment) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal and Level of Sanction (Combined Misconduct of Negligence of Duty and Sexual Harassment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
