Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Workplace Bullying)” (Unfair Dismissal 126)
- Date2026/01/19 04:13
- Read 247
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (repeated workplace bullying).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 741 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
November 14, 2025 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
All grounds for discipline based on workplace bullying were found to exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was dismissed for disciplinary reasons on the ground of workplace bullying and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on whether the conduct constituted workplace bullying, the appropriateness of the level of discipline (disciplinary severity), and whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedures. As a result, the central issue became whether the employer’s disciplinary measure exceeded the bounds of its discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where workplace bullying is recognized, whether, in light of the content, repetitiveness, and intentionality of the conduct, dismissal as the level of discipline constitutes an unfair dismissal that is conspicuously unreasonable by general social standards.”
In addition, it was also in dispute whether the disciplinary procedures—such as the composition of the disciplinary committee, the opportunity given to the employee to present explanations, and written notification—were conducted in compliance with the Labor Standards Act and the company’s rules of employment.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that all of the employee’s misconduct constituting workplace bullying did in fact occur, that the content and nature of the conduct, as well as its repetitiveness and intentionality, were established, and that this misconduct had a substantial negative impact on corporate order and workplace discipline.
In view of these factors, contrary to the employee’s assertions, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the employer’s choice of dismissal as a disciplinary measure as an excessively severe sanction that had conspicuously lost its reasonableness by general social standards.
The panel also found no procedural defects in the disciplinary process, noting that there were no particular flaws in the composition of the disciplinary committee, that the employee had been given an opportunity to explain (defend) himself or herself, and that the grounds for discipline and the details of the disposition were notified in writing.
Accordingly, the panel held that this dismissal did not constitute an unfair dismissal, as it was difficult to find that the employer had exceeded or abused the limits of its discretionary authority in imposing discipline with respect to the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, or the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if workplace bullying is found to have occurred and the conduct was repeated and intentional, even severe disciplinary measures up to and including dismissal may be justified. In particular, any prior history of similar misconduct, lack of efforts to remedy the harm, and the degree to which corporate order has been disrupted can all operate as factors unfavorable to the employee in determining the level of discipline. It is therefore important, at an early stage, to cease the conduct and to actively demonstrate genuine apologies and efforts to remedy the harm.
Furthermore, if you intend to contest an unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, you must systematically prepare materials capable of proving that the employer’s disciplinary measure is conspicuously excessive by general social standards (such as the level of discipline in past similar cases, your work performance and lack of prior disciplinary record, the minor nature of the harm, etc.).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, when determining the level of discipline in workplace bullying cases, it is necessary to comprehensively review and document the content, nature, repetitiveness, and intentionality of the misconduct, the extent of the harm and its impact on corporate order, the employee’s prior disciplinary history, and whether any efforts were made to remedy the harm. It is also important to review the standards for disciplinary severity under the rules of employment and HR regulations, and to check for consistency with the handling of past similar cases, thereby reducing the risk of being accused of abusing disciplinary discretion.
In addition, the employer must strictly comply with procedural requirements such as the composition of the disciplinary committee, prior notice and the opportunity to present explanations, and written notification of the grounds for discipline and the details of the disposition. Only when such procedural legitimacy is secured will the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will recognize the validity of a disciplinary dismissal increase. This should always be borne in mind in practice.
This decision of the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates that, in workplace bullying cases where the grounds for discipline are clearly established and the level of discipline and procedures are in line with legal principles, claims of unfair dismissal are unlikely to be upheld. In similar cases, both employees and employers should accurately understand the criteria applied by the Labor Relations Commission and, from the early stages of a dispute, establish a response strategy with advice from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
All grounds for discipline based on workplace bullying were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the content and nature of the employee’s misconduct, its repetitiveness and intentionality, and the impact of the misconduct on corporate order, the employer’s disposition in this case cannot be regarded as an unlawful measure that exceeded or abused the limits of its discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
As there were no defects in the composition of the disciplinary committee, an opportunity to present explanations was given, and written notification was provided, there were no procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
All grounds for discipline based on workplace bullying were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the content and nature of the employee’s misconduct, its repetitiveness and intentionality, and the impact of the misconduct on corporate order, the employer’s disposition in this case cannot be regarded as an unlawful measure that exceeded or abused the limits of its discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
As there were no defects in the composition of the disciplinary committee, an opportunity to present explanations was given, and written notification was provided, there were no procedural defects. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Sexual Harassment and Bullying at a Private School)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Overseas Travel During Sick Leave)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (repeated workplace bullying), 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Overseas Travel During Sick Leave)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (repeated workplace bullying) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Workplace Bullying).”
※ 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 (repeated workplace bullying).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 741 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
November 14, 2025 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
All grounds for discipline based on workplace bullying were found to exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was dismissed for disciplinary reasons on the ground of workplace bullying and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on whether the conduct constituted workplace bullying, the appropriateness of the level of discipline (disciplinary severity), and whether there were any defects in the disciplinary procedures. As a result, the central issue became whether the employer’s disciplinary measure exceeded the bounds of its discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where workplace bullying is recognized, whether, in light of the content, repetitiveness, and intentionality of the conduct, dismissal as the level of discipline constitutes an unfair dismissal that is conspicuously unreasonable by general social standards.”
In addition, it was also in dispute whether the disciplinary procedures—such as the composition of the disciplinary committee, the opportunity given to the employee to present explanations, and written notification—were conducted in compliance with the Labor Standards Act and the company’s rules of employment.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that all of the employee’s misconduct constituting workplace bullying did in fact occur, that the content and nature of the conduct, as well as its repetitiveness and intentionality, were established, and that this misconduct had a substantial negative impact on corporate order and workplace discipline.
In view of these factors, contrary to the employee’s assertions, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the employer’s choice of dismissal as a disciplinary measure as an excessively severe sanction that had conspicuously lost its reasonableness by general social standards.
The panel also found no procedural defects in the disciplinary process, noting that there were no particular flaws in the composition of the disciplinary committee, that the employee had been given an opportunity to explain (defend) himself or herself, and that the grounds for discipline and the details of the disposition were notified in writing.
Accordingly, the panel held that this dismissal did not constitute an unfair dismissal, as it was difficult to find that the employer had exceeded or abused the limits of its discretionary authority in imposing discipline with respect to the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, or the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if workplace bullying is found to have occurred and the conduct was repeated and intentional, even severe disciplinary measures up to and including dismissal may be justified. In particular, any prior history of similar misconduct, lack of efforts to remedy the harm, and the degree to which corporate order has been disrupted can all operate as factors unfavorable to the employee in determining the level of discipline. It is therefore important, at an early stage, to cease the conduct and to actively demonstrate genuine apologies and efforts to remedy the harm.
Furthermore, if you intend to contest an unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, you must systematically prepare materials capable of proving that the employer’s disciplinary measure is conspicuously excessive by general social standards (such as the level of discipline in past similar cases, your work performance and lack of prior disciplinary record, the minor nature of the harm, etc.).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, when determining the level of discipline in workplace bullying cases, it is necessary to comprehensively review and document the content, nature, repetitiveness, and intentionality of the misconduct, the extent of the harm and its impact on corporate order, the employee’s prior disciplinary history, and whether any efforts were made to remedy the harm. It is also important to review the standards for disciplinary severity under the rules of employment and HR regulations, and to check for consistency with the handling of past similar cases, thereby reducing the risk of being accused of abusing disciplinary discretion.
In addition, the employer must strictly comply with procedural requirements such as the composition of the disciplinary committee, prior notice and the opportunity to present explanations, and written notification of the grounds for discipline and the details of the disposition. Only when such procedural legitimacy is secured will the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will recognize the validity of a disciplinary dismissal increase. This should always be borne in mind in practice.
This decision of the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates that, in workplace bullying cases where the grounds for discipline are clearly established and the level of discipline and procedures are in line with legal principles, claims of unfair dismissal are unlikely to be upheld. In similar cases, both employees and employers should accurately understand the criteria applied by the Labor Relations Commission and, from the early stages of a dispute, establish a response strategy with advice from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
All grounds for discipline based on workplace bullying were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the content and nature of the employee’s misconduct, its repetitiveness and intentionality, and the impact of the misconduct on corporate order, the employer’s disposition in this case cannot be regarded as an unlawful measure that exceeded or abused the limits of its discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
As there were no defects in the composition of the disciplinary committee, an opportunity to present explanations was given, and written notification was provided, there were no procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
All grounds for discipline based on workplace bullying were found to exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the content and nature of the employee’s misconduct, its repetitiveness and intentionality, and the impact of the misconduct on corporate order, the employer’s disposition in this case cannot be regarded as an unlawful measure that exceeded or abused the limits of its discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
As there were no defects in the composition of the disciplinary committee, an opportunity to present explanations was given, and written notification was provided, there were no procedural defects. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Sexual Harassment and Bullying at a Private School)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Overseas Travel During Sick Leave)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (repeated workplace bullying), 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Overseas Travel During Sick Leave)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (repeated workplace bullying) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Workplace Bullying).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
