Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment · Property Damage)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 262)
- Date2026/03/06 04:13
- Read 208
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · property damage).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9070 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.15 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s (i) refusal to comply with legitimate work orders and neglect of duties, (ii) acts disturbing the workplace hierarchy, (iii) obstruction of business and damage to company property, and (iv) workplace harassment were found to constitute grounds for discipline, whereas the act of leaving the workplace without permission was found not to constitute a ground for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that the company’s disciplinary dismissal was unfair. On 15 January 2026, the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the application. The Commission focused on whether multiple acts of misconduct—refusal to comply with legitimate work orders, disturbance of workplace hierarchy, obstruction of business and damage to company property, and workplace harassment—constituted grounds for discipline and whether the severity and procedure of the disciplinary action were lawful. In this article, by comparing similar disputes handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, we整理 the legal implications of this case in which the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where there are multiple acts of misconduct such as repeated refusal to comply with legitimate work orders, workplace harassment, and damage to company property, (i) whether the disciplinary dismissal constitutes a reason of such gravity that, according to social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained, and (ii) whether there are any defects in the disciplinary procedure.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case held that, among the misconduct alleged by the employer, the employee’s leaving the workplace without permission was difficult to regard as a ground for discipline, while (i) refusal to comply with legitimate work orders and neglect of duties, (ii) acts disturbing the workplace hierarchy, (iii) obstruction of business and damage to company property, and (iv) workplace harassment did constitute grounds for discipline under the rules of employment, and that, in light of the fact that multiple acts of misconduct had seriously undermined workplace order and the relationship of trust,
the employee bore responsibility of such a degree that, according to social norms, it was not possible to continue the employment relationship with the employer.
The Commission further found that the employer had complied with the disciplinary procedures by specifically notifying the employee in advance of the misconduct at issue and providing an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and present explanations, and that the level of discipline could not be viewed as markedly excessive in light of the employer’s internal standards. On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was a lawful disciplinary dismissal that did not deviate from or abuse the employer’s disciplinary authority, and therefore was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that where multiple acts that directly undermine corporate order—such as workplace harassment, obstruction of the work of superiors or colleagues, and damage to company property—are accumulated, the disciplinary dismissal may still be found justified overall even if some of the individual grounds for discipline are not upheld. In addition, repeated refusal to comply with legitimate work orders not only constitutes an independent ground for discipline, but, when combined with other misconduct, may be evaluated as reaching the level at which, according to social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. Therefore, if the employee has objections, it is advisable to promptly make use of procedures for raising issues and providing explanations.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to secure the legitimacy of a disciplinary dismissal, it is important to set out in detail the content, timing, and evidence of the misconduct and to clearly link these to the grounds for discipline in the rules of employment. With respect to disciplinary severity, employers should comprehensively consider the nature of the employee’s duties, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, the impact on workplace order, and the employee’s past work attitude, in line with the factors presented in Supreme Court precedents, and ensure the reasonableness between internal disciplinary standards and the actual disposition so that, according to social norms, the sanction is not markedly excessive. Furthermore, as in this case, since the Labor Relations Commission strictly examines the lawfulness of disciplinary procedures, it is very helpful for preventing disputes to document the guarantee of procedural rights, such as prior notice, requests to appear, and opportunities to present explanations.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s (i) refusal to comply with legitimate work orders and neglect of duties, (ii) acts disturbing the workplace hierarchy, (iii) obstruction of business and damage to company property, and (iv) workplace harassment were found to constitute grounds for discipline, whereas the act of leaving the workplace without permission was found not to constitute a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary severity
Since the employee was found to bear responsibility of such a degree that, according to social norms, the employment relationship between the employer and the employee could not be maintained, the dismissal could not be viewed as lacking legitimacy on the ground that it deviated from or abused the employer’s disciplinary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Because the employer notified the employee in advance of the misconduct that would serve as grounds for discipline and provided an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and present explanations, the Commission found no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s (i) refusal to comply with legitimate work orders and neglect of duties, (ii) acts disturbing the workplace hierarchy, (iii) obstruction of business and damage to company property, and (iv) workplace harassment were found to constitute grounds for discipline, whereas the act of leaving the workplace without permission was found not to constitute a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary severity
Since the employee was found to bear responsibility of such a degree that, according to social norms, the employment relationship between the employer and the employee could not be maintained, the dismissal could not be viewed as lacking legitimacy on the ground that it deviated from or abused the employer’s disciplinary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Because the employer notified the employee in advance of the misconduct that would serve as grounds for discipline and provided an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and present explanations, the Commission found no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Access to and Leakage of Personal Information)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Defect in Written Notice (Advance Notice of Dismissal)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · property damage), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work orders, 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Access to and Leakage of Personal Information)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · property damage) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment · Property Damage).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · property damage).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9070 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.15 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s (i) refusal to comply with legitimate work orders and neglect of duties, (ii) acts disturbing the workplace hierarchy, (iii) obstruction of business and damage to company property, and (iv) workplace harassment were found to constitute grounds for discipline, whereas the act of leaving the workplace without permission was found not to constitute a ground for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that the company’s disciplinary dismissal was unfair. On 15 January 2026, the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the application. The Commission focused on whether multiple acts of misconduct—refusal to comply with legitimate work orders, disturbance of workplace hierarchy, obstruction of business and damage to company property, and workplace harassment—constituted grounds for discipline and whether the severity and procedure of the disciplinary action were lawful. In this article, by comparing similar disputes handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, we整理 the legal implications of this case in which the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where there are multiple acts of misconduct such as repeated refusal to comply with legitimate work orders, workplace harassment, and damage to company property, (i) whether the disciplinary dismissal constitutes a reason of such gravity that, according to social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained, and (ii) whether there are any defects in the disciplinary procedure.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case held that, among the misconduct alleged by the employer, the employee’s leaving the workplace without permission was difficult to regard as a ground for discipline, while (i) refusal to comply with legitimate work orders and neglect of duties, (ii) acts disturbing the workplace hierarchy, (iii) obstruction of business and damage to company property, and (iv) workplace harassment did constitute grounds for discipline under the rules of employment, and that, in light of the fact that multiple acts of misconduct had seriously undermined workplace order and the relationship of trust,
the employee bore responsibility of such a degree that, according to social norms, it was not possible to continue the employment relationship with the employer.
The Commission further found that the employer had complied with the disciplinary procedures by specifically notifying the employee in advance of the misconduct at issue and providing an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and present explanations, and that the level of discipline could not be viewed as markedly excessive in light of the employer’s internal standards. On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was a lawful disciplinary dismissal that did not deviate from or abuse the employer’s disciplinary authority, and therefore was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that where multiple acts that directly undermine corporate order—such as workplace harassment, obstruction of the work of superiors or colleagues, and damage to company property—are accumulated, the disciplinary dismissal may still be found justified overall even if some of the individual grounds for discipline are not upheld. In addition, repeated refusal to comply with legitimate work orders not only constitutes an independent ground for discipline, but, when combined with other misconduct, may be evaluated as reaching the level at which, according to social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. Therefore, if the employee has objections, it is advisable to promptly make use of procedures for raising issues and providing explanations.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to secure the legitimacy of a disciplinary dismissal, it is important to set out in detail the content, timing, and evidence of the misconduct and to clearly link these to the grounds for discipline in the rules of employment. With respect to disciplinary severity, employers should comprehensively consider the nature of the employee’s duties, the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, the impact on workplace order, and the employee’s past work attitude, in line with the factors presented in Supreme Court precedents, and ensure the reasonableness between internal disciplinary standards and the actual disposition so that, according to social norms, the sanction is not markedly excessive. Furthermore, as in this case, since the Labor Relations Commission strictly examines the lawfulness of disciplinary procedures, it is very helpful for preventing disputes to document the guarantee of procedural rights, such as prior notice, requests to appear, and opportunities to present explanations.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s (i) refusal to comply with legitimate work orders and neglect of duties, (ii) acts disturbing the workplace hierarchy, (iii) obstruction of business and damage to company property, and (iv) workplace harassment were found to constitute grounds for discipline, whereas the act of leaving the workplace without permission was found not to constitute a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary severity
Since the employee was found to bear responsibility of such a degree that, according to social norms, the employment relationship between the employer and the employee could not be maintained, the dismissal could not be viewed as lacking legitimacy on the ground that it deviated from or abused the employer’s disciplinary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Because the employer notified the employee in advance of the misconduct that would serve as grounds for discipline and provided an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and present explanations, the Commission found no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s (i) refusal to comply with legitimate work orders and neglect of duties, (ii) acts disturbing the workplace hierarchy, (iii) obstruction of business and damage to company property, and (iv) workplace harassment were found to constitute grounds for discipline, whereas the act of leaving the workplace without permission was found not to constitute a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary severity
Since the employee was found to bear responsibility of such a degree that, according to social norms, the employment relationship between the employer and the employee could not be maintained, the dismissal could not be viewed as lacking legitimacy on the ground that it deviated from or abused the employer’s disciplinary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Because the employer notified the employee in advance of the misconduct that would serve as grounds for discipline and provided an opportunity to attend the disciplinary committee and present explanations, the Commission found no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Access to and Leakage of Personal Information)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Defect in Written Notice (Advance Notice of Dismissal)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · property damage), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work orders, 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Access to and Leakage of Personal Information)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · property damage) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment · Property Damage).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
