Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment · Abuse of Power Toward Partner Companies)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 237)
- Date2026/02/26 04:09
- Read 217
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee fully prevailed (all claims upheld) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · abuse of power toward partner companies).”
[Case Information]
This case concluded with a decision in favor of the employee (full recognition) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · abuse of power toward partner companies).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1049 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.23 · Result: All claims upheld
Key Issue Summary:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The alleged acts of workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission were all found to constitute grounds for discipline as set out in the company’s rules of employment and HR regulations.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on an employee on the grounds of workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, leaving the workplace without permission, and problems in the process of disposing of key assets (molds). The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a comprehensive review of (i) whether grounds for discipline existed, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately found that the dismissal constituted an unfair disciplinary measure.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was:
“Where some of multiple alleged grounds for discipline are recognized, but the remainder do not easily amount to intent or gross negligence, and there are no serious defects in the disciplinary procedures, is dismissal as the level of discipline socially acceptable and justified?”
The decision panel in this case found that: the alleged workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission did fall within the grounds for discipline under the rules of employment and HR regulations; however, with respect to the disposal of key assets (mold disposal), while some carelessness on the part of the employee was acknowledged, it was difficult to regard this as intentional or grossly negligent; there were no serious procedural defects in terms of attendance at the disciplinary committee and written notice of dismissal; and nevertheless, dismissal was, in light of social norms, markedly lacking in justification and exceeded the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was held to be unfair on the basis that, even if some of the grounds for discipline were recognized, the level of discipline (dismissal) was excessively severe.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission held, first, that the acts of workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission all fell within the enumerated grounds for discipline under the rules of employment and HR regulations, and thus the existence of grounds for discipline as such was recognized. Second, although there was some carelessness by the employee in the process of disposing of key assets (mold disposal), it was difficult to find that intent or gross negligence had been proven to a degree that would immediately constitute a ground for discipline. Third, there were no serious procedural defects in the disciplinary process, such as attendance at the HR committee and written notice of dismissal, so the formal procedures were satisfied. Fourth, taking into account the content and weight of the recognized grounds for discipline and the circumstances leading the employer to impose discipline, dismissal was, in light of social norms, markedly lacking in justification and amounted to an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
On this basis, the Commission recognized the dismissal as unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to clearly understand that even if some misconduct is acknowledged, that alone does not automatically justify dismissal. Disciplinary dismissal is permitted only where there is a culpable reason of such gravity that, in light of social norms, it is no longer possible to maintain the employment contract. Accordingly, at the Labor Relations Commission stage, it is crucial to provide concrete explanations regarding the presence or absence of intent or gross negligence in relation to the grounds for discipline, the relative weight of the misconduct, and the employee’s past work attitude.
It is also important to systematically secure evidence that can demonstrate the circumstances and context of each issue—such as workplace harassment, conflicts with partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission—including the employer’s instructions, working environment, and any training or guidance provided. Even if the disciplinary procedures were formally followed, if the level of discipline is excessively severe, there is a high likelihood of obtaining relief. Therefore, instead of simply accepting the dismissal, employees should actively consider filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where conduct such as workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission is expressly listed as a ground for discipline in the rules of employment, care must be taken in separately determining whether such conduct justifies dismissal. When choosing dismissal based on multiple grounds for discipline taken together, the employer should carefully examine, for each ground, the existence of intent or gross negligence, the impact on corporate order, the extent of damage, and any prior disciplinary history, and should thoroughly review whether the level of discipline is not excessive in light of social norms.
In addition, separate from ensuring procedural fairness—such as attendance at the HR committee, providing an opportunity to be heard, and written notice—it is important to keep records showing that stepwise disciplinary measures (such as wage reduction or suspension) were considered. If the level of discipline is found to be excessive, the Labor Relations Commission may overturn the dismissal as unfair. Therefore, employers are advised, in advance, to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review and refine both the disciplinary standards in the rules of employment and the actual practices in their application.
This unfair dismissal decision once again confirms that, even where the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures are recognized, if the level of discipline is markedly excessive in light of social norms, the Labor Relations Commission will find the dismissal to be unfair. As with redundancy dismissals, in disciplinary dismissals as well, the three elements of “grounds, procedure, and level of discipline” must all be satisfied for the dismissal to be considered justified. This basic legal principle should always be kept in mind in practice.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Among the grounds for dismissal, the acts of workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission are all deemed to fall within the grounds for discipline stipulated in the rules of employment and HR regulations. However, as to the remaining ground for discipline—disposal of key assets—while it is difficult to deny that the employee engaged in some careless conduct in the process of disposing of the molds, it is hard to find that there was intent or gross negligence to a degree that would immediately justify recognizing this as a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
In light of the circumstances leading the employer to impose disciplinary measures and the content and weight of the grounds for discipline that were actually recognized among the multiple alleged grounds, dismissal is deemed, in light of social norms, to be markedly lacking in justification and to constitute an unfair disciplinary measure that exceeds the scope of the discretionary authority over discipline entrusted to the employer as the person in charge of personnel affairs.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employee appeared before the HR committee and presented explanations, and received written notice of dismissal. Accordingly, it is determined that there were no serious procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Among the grounds for dismissal, the acts of workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission are all deemed to fall within the grounds for discipline stipulated in the rules of employment and HR regulations. However, as to the remaining ground for discipline—disposal of key assets—while it is difficult to deny that the employee engaged in some careless conduct in the process of disposing of the molds, it is hard to find that there was intent or gross negligence to a degree that would immediately justify recognizing this as a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
In light of the circumstances leading the employer to impose disciplinary measures and the content and weight of the grounds for discipline that were actually recognized among the multiple alleged grounds, dismissal is deemed, in light of social norms, to be markedly lacking in justification and to constitute an unfair disciplinary measure that exceeds the scope of the discretionary authority over discipline entrusted to the employer as the person in charge of personnel affairs.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employee appeared before the HR committee and presented explanations, and received written notice of dismissal. Accordingly, it is determined that there were no serious procedural defects. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Justifiability of Reassignment (Reassignment Following Workplace Harassment)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · abuse of power toward partner companies), disciplinary dismissal, workplace harassment, violation of company policy · failure to comply with work instructions, absence without leave, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Justifiability of Reassignment (Reassignment Following Workplace Harassment)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · abuse of power toward partner companies) can be found in the “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment · Abuse of Power Toward Partner Companies) Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case concluded with a decision in favor of the employee (full recognition) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · abuse of power toward partner companies).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1049 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.23 · Result: All claims upheld
Key Issue Summary:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The alleged acts of workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission were all found to constitute grounds for discipline as set out in the company’s rules of employment and HR regulations.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on an employee on the grounds of workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, leaving the workplace without permission, and problems in the process of disposing of key assets (molds). The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a comprehensive review of (i) whether grounds for discipline existed, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately found that the dismissal constituted an unfair disciplinary measure.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was:
“Where some of multiple alleged grounds for discipline are recognized, but the remainder do not easily amount to intent or gross negligence, and there are no serious defects in the disciplinary procedures, is dismissal as the level of discipline socially acceptable and justified?”
The decision panel in this case found that: the alleged workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission did fall within the grounds for discipline under the rules of employment and HR regulations; however, with respect to the disposal of key assets (mold disposal), while some carelessness on the part of the employee was acknowledged, it was difficult to regard this as intentional or grossly negligent; there were no serious procedural defects in terms of attendance at the disciplinary committee and written notice of dismissal; and nevertheless, dismissal was, in light of social norms, markedly lacking in justification and exceeded the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was held to be unfair on the basis that, even if some of the grounds for discipline were recognized, the level of discipline (dismissal) was excessively severe.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission held, first, that the acts of workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission all fell within the enumerated grounds for discipline under the rules of employment and HR regulations, and thus the existence of grounds for discipline as such was recognized. Second, although there was some carelessness by the employee in the process of disposing of key assets (mold disposal), it was difficult to find that intent or gross negligence had been proven to a degree that would immediately constitute a ground for discipline. Third, there were no serious procedural defects in the disciplinary process, such as attendance at the HR committee and written notice of dismissal, so the formal procedures were satisfied. Fourth, taking into account the content and weight of the recognized grounds for discipline and the circumstances leading the employer to impose discipline, dismissal was, in light of social norms, markedly lacking in justification and amounted to an abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
On this basis, the Commission recognized the dismissal as unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to clearly understand that even if some misconduct is acknowledged, that alone does not automatically justify dismissal. Disciplinary dismissal is permitted only where there is a culpable reason of such gravity that, in light of social norms, it is no longer possible to maintain the employment contract. Accordingly, at the Labor Relations Commission stage, it is crucial to provide concrete explanations regarding the presence or absence of intent or gross negligence in relation to the grounds for discipline, the relative weight of the misconduct, and the employee’s past work attitude.
It is also important to systematically secure evidence that can demonstrate the circumstances and context of each issue—such as workplace harassment, conflicts with partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission—including the employer’s instructions, working environment, and any training or guidance provided. Even if the disciplinary procedures were formally followed, if the level of discipline is excessively severe, there is a high likelihood of obtaining relief. Therefore, instead of simply accepting the dismissal, employees should actively consider filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where conduct such as workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission is expressly listed as a ground for discipline in the rules of employment, care must be taken in separately determining whether such conduct justifies dismissal. When choosing dismissal based on multiple grounds for discipline taken together, the employer should carefully examine, for each ground, the existence of intent or gross negligence, the impact on corporate order, the extent of damage, and any prior disciplinary history, and should thoroughly review whether the level of discipline is not excessive in light of social norms.
In addition, separate from ensuring procedural fairness—such as attendance at the HR committee, providing an opportunity to be heard, and written notice—it is important to keep records showing that stepwise disciplinary measures (such as wage reduction or suspension) were considered. If the level of discipline is found to be excessive, the Labor Relations Commission may overturn the dismissal as unfair. Therefore, employers are advised, in advance, to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review and refine both the disciplinary standards in the rules of employment and the actual practices in their application.
This unfair dismissal decision once again confirms that, even where the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures are recognized, if the level of discipline is markedly excessive in light of social norms, the Labor Relations Commission will find the dismissal to be unfair. As with redundancy dismissals, in disciplinary dismissals as well, the three elements of “grounds, procedure, and level of discipline” must all be satisfied for the dismissal to be considered justified. This basic legal principle should always be kept in mind in practice.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Among the grounds for dismissal, the acts of workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission are all deemed to fall within the grounds for discipline stipulated in the rules of employment and HR regulations. However, as to the remaining ground for discipline—disposal of key assets—while it is difficult to deny that the employee engaged in some careless conduct in the process of disposing of the molds, it is hard to find that there was intent or gross negligence to a degree that would immediately justify recognizing this as a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
In light of the circumstances leading the employer to impose disciplinary measures and the content and weight of the grounds for discipline that were actually recognized among the multiple alleged grounds, dismissal is deemed, in light of social norms, to be markedly lacking in justification and to constitute an unfair disciplinary measure that exceeds the scope of the discretionary authority over discipline entrusted to the employer as the person in charge of personnel affairs.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employee appeared before the HR committee and presented explanations, and received written notice of dismissal. Accordingly, it is determined that there were no serious procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Among the grounds for dismissal, the acts of workplace harassment, abuse of power toward partner companies, and leaving the workplace without permission are all deemed to fall within the grounds for discipline stipulated in the rules of employment and HR regulations. However, as to the remaining ground for discipline—disposal of key assets—while it is difficult to deny that the employee engaged in some careless conduct in the process of disposing of the molds, it is hard to find that there was intent or gross negligence to a degree that would immediately justify recognizing this as a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
In light of the circumstances leading the employer to impose disciplinary measures and the content and weight of the grounds for discipline that were actually recognized among the multiple alleged grounds, dismissal is deemed, in light of social norms, to be markedly lacking in justification and to constitute an unfair disciplinary measure that exceeds the scope of the discretionary authority over discipline entrusted to the employer as the person in charge of personnel affairs.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employee appeared before the HR committee and presented explanations, and received written notice of dismissal. Accordingly, it is determined that there were no serious procedural defects. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Justifiability of Reassignment (Reassignment Following Workplace Harassment)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · abuse of power toward partner companies), disciplinary dismissal, workplace harassment, violation of company policy · failure to comply with work instructions, absence without leave, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Justifiability of Reassignment (Reassignment Following Workplace Harassment)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · abuse of power toward partner companies) can be found in the “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment · Abuse of Power Toward Partner Companies) Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
