Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Unauthorized Absence (Allegations of Workplace Harassment and Depression)” (Unfair Dismissal 152)
- Date2026/01/27 04:09
- Read 219
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “unauthorized absence (allegations of workplace harassment and depression).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1331 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.23 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed:
① With respect to the workplace harassment alleged by the employee as the basis for requesting paid sick leave, both the company’s internal investigation and the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s investigation were closed with findings of no violations;
② With respect to the “depression and panic attack symptoms” alleged by the employee as an occupational disease, there was insufficient objective evidence to find that workplace harassment was the direct cause; and
③ The employer granted the employee paid leave during the period of investigation into the workplace harassment complaint, but…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee did not report to work for an extended period, asserting workplace harassment and resulting depression and panic attacks as grounds for paid sick leave. The company treated this as unauthorized absence and imposed disciplinary dismissal. The case concerns a re‑examination before the Labor Relations Commission on whether the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal.
The Central Labor Relations Commission, taking into account the results of the workplace harassment investigations by the company and the Ministry of Employment and Labor, the circumstances surrounding the absences, and the progress of the disciplinary procedures, rendered a decision in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When an employee fails to report to work for an extended period, citing workplace harassment and an occupational disease (depression and panic attacks), is a disciplinary dismissal on the ground of unauthorized absence supported by just cause, an appropriate level of discipline, and lawful procedures?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel found that: the employer conducted its own investigation following the workplace harassment complaint and also underwent an investigation by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, both of which were closed with findings of “no violations”; there was insufficient objective evidence to conclude that the depression and panic attacks alleged by the employee arose directly from workplace harassment; and the employer granted paid leave to the employee during the investigation period, yet the employee refused to accept the investigation results and continued to be absent for a long period even after the investigations were closed.
In light of these circumstances, the employee’s absences did not constitute legitimate sick leave or a lawful leave of absence, but rather unauthorized absence. Considering that the employee was absent without authorization for a very long period—137 days in total between 13 March and 18 December 2024, with at least 15 days of unauthorized absence per month for at least four months, excluding the paid leave period during the harassment investigation—the Commission held that the level of disciplinary dismissal could not be regarded as markedly excessive by social standards.
Furthermore, the employee was given an opportunity to attend and present explanations during the disciplinary committee proceedings but did not attend due to personal circumstances. Thus, it could not be said that the employer deprived the employee of an opportunity to defend himself/herself, and there was no serious defect in the disciplinary procedure. Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was justified and did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employee is unable to provide labor due to workplace harassment or an occupational disease, it is important to clarify the causal relationship as much as possible through objective materials such as the results of company and administrative investigations, medical certificates, and treatment records.
Even if the employee disagrees with the investigation results, if he or she ceases to report to work for an extended period without separate approval for sick leave or a leave of absence, such absence may be deemed unauthorized, and disciplinary dismissal may be found justified. Therefore, employees should follow lawful procedures—such as submitting written applications and engaging in consultations—to obtain sick leave or a leave of absence.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when a workplace harassment complaint is raised, it is important to clarify the facts through an internal investigation and, where necessary, a report to the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and to take reasonable protective measures such as granting paid leave during the investigation period.
If, despite these measures, the employee refuses to accept the investigation results and continues long‑term unauthorized absence, the employer should organize and document the number and duration of absences and the extent of work disruption, and strictly comply with procedures such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity for explanation. The employer should also consider stepwise disciplinary measures so that the level of discipline is not markedly excessive by social standards.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
① With respect to the workplace harassment alleged by the employee as the basis for requesting paid sick leave, both the company’s internal investigation and the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s investigation were closed with findings of no violations;
② With respect to the “depression and panic attack symptoms” alleged by the employee as an occupational disease, there was insufficient objective evidence to find that workplace harassment was the direct cause; and
③ The employer granted the employee paid leave during the period of investigation into the workplace harassment complaint, but the employee refused to accept the investigation results and continued to be absent even after the investigations were closed.
Taking these circumstances together, the employee’s long‑term, repeated absences constituted unauthorized absence and were recognized as just cause for disciplinary action.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
The employee’s unauthorized absences totaled 137 days between 13 March 2024 and 18 December 2024. Excluding the paid leave period during the workplace harassment investigation, the employee was absent without authorization for at least 15 days per month for at least four months. Therefore, the level of disciplinary dismissal could not be considered excessive.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
The employee did not personally attend the disciplinary committee to provide explanations due to personal circumstances; however, this does not mean that the employer in this case failed to provide an opportunity for explanation. Accordingly, there was no procedural defect.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
① With respect to the workplace harassment alleged by the employee as the basis for requesting paid sick leave, both the company’s internal investigation and the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s investigation were closed with findings of no violations;
② With respect to the “depression and panic attack symptoms” alleged by the employee as an occupational disease, there was insufficient objective evidence to find that workplace harassment was the direct cause; and
③ The employer granted the employee paid leave during the period of investigation into the workplace harassment complaint, but the employee refused to accept the investigation results and continued to be absent even after the investigations were closed.
Taking these circumstances together, the employee’s long‑term, repeated absences constituted unauthorized absence and were recognized as just cause for disciplinary action.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
The employee’s unauthorized absences totaled 137 days between 13 March 2024 and 18 December 2024. Excluding the paid leave period during the workplace harassment investigation, the employee was absent without authorization for at least 15 days per month for at least four months. Therefore, the level of disciplinary dismissal could not be considered excessive.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
The employee did not personally attend the disciplinary committee to provide explanations due to personal circumstances; however, this does not mean that the employer in this case failed to provide an opportunity for explanation. Accordingly, there was no procedural defect. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Misunderstanding of Manager Assault)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal Rejected (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissal Rejected
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, unauthorized absence (allegations of workplace harassment and depression), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Misunderstanding of Manager Assault)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to unauthorized absence (allegations of workplace harassment and depression) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Unauthorized Absence (Allegations of Workplace Harassment and Depression).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “unauthorized absence (allegations of workplace harassment and depression).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1331 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.23 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed:
① With respect to the workplace harassment alleged by the employee as the basis for requesting paid sick leave, both the company’s internal investigation and the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s investigation were closed with findings of no violations;
② With respect to the “depression and panic attack symptoms” alleged by the employee as an occupational disease, there was insufficient objective evidence to find that workplace harassment was the direct cause; and
③ The employer granted the employee paid leave during the period of investigation into the workplace harassment complaint, but…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee did not report to work for an extended period, asserting workplace harassment and resulting depression and panic attacks as grounds for paid sick leave. The company treated this as unauthorized absence and imposed disciplinary dismissal. The case concerns a re‑examination before the Labor Relations Commission on whether the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal.
The Central Labor Relations Commission, taking into account the results of the workplace harassment investigations by the company and the Ministry of Employment and Labor, the circumstances surrounding the absences, and the progress of the disciplinary procedures, rendered a decision in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When an employee fails to report to work for an extended period, citing workplace harassment and an occupational disease (depression and panic attacks), is a disciplinary dismissal on the ground of unauthorized absence supported by just cause, an appropriate level of discipline, and lawful procedures?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel found that: the employer conducted its own investigation following the workplace harassment complaint and also underwent an investigation by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, both of which were closed with findings of “no violations”; there was insufficient objective evidence to conclude that the depression and panic attacks alleged by the employee arose directly from workplace harassment; and the employer granted paid leave to the employee during the investigation period, yet the employee refused to accept the investigation results and continued to be absent for a long period even after the investigations were closed.
In light of these circumstances, the employee’s absences did not constitute legitimate sick leave or a lawful leave of absence, but rather unauthorized absence. Considering that the employee was absent without authorization for a very long period—137 days in total between 13 March and 18 December 2024, with at least 15 days of unauthorized absence per month for at least four months, excluding the paid leave period during the harassment investigation—the Commission held that the level of disciplinary dismissal could not be regarded as markedly excessive by social standards.
Furthermore, the employee was given an opportunity to attend and present explanations during the disciplinary committee proceedings but did not attend due to personal circumstances. Thus, it could not be said that the employer deprived the employee of an opportunity to defend himself/herself, and there was no serious defect in the disciplinary procedure. Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was justified and did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employee is unable to provide labor due to workplace harassment or an occupational disease, it is important to clarify the causal relationship as much as possible through objective materials such as the results of company and administrative investigations, medical certificates, and treatment records.
Even if the employee disagrees with the investigation results, if he or she ceases to report to work for an extended period without separate approval for sick leave or a leave of absence, such absence may be deemed unauthorized, and disciplinary dismissal may be found justified. Therefore, employees should follow lawful procedures—such as submitting written applications and engaging in consultations—to obtain sick leave or a leave of absence.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when a workplace harassment complaint is raised, it is important to clarify the facts through an internal investigation and, where necessary, a report to the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and to take reasonable protective measures such as granting paid leave during the investigation period.
If, despite these measures, the employee refuses to accept the investigation results and continues long‑term unauthorized absence, the employer should organize and document the number and duration of absences and the extent of work disruption, and strictly comply with procedures such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity for explanation. The employer should also consider stepwise disciplinary measures so that the level of discipline is not markedly excessive by social standards.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
① With respect to the workplace harassment alleged by the employee as the basis for requesting paid sick leave, both the company’s internal investigation and the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s investigation were closed with findings of no violations;
② With respect to the “depression and panic attack symptoms” alleged by the employee as an occupational disease, there was insufficient objective evidence to find that workplace harassment was the direct cause; and
③ The employer granted the employee paid leave during the period of investigation into the workplace harassment complaint, but the employee refused to accept the investigation results and continued to be absent even after the investigations were closed.
Taking these circumstances together, the employee’s long‑term, repeated absences constituted unauthorized absence and were recognized as just cause for disciplinary action.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
The employee’s unauthorized absences totaled 137 days between 13 March 2024 and 18 December 2024. Excluding the paid leave period during the workplace harassment investigation, the employee was absent without authorization for at least 15 days per month for at least four months. Therefore, the level of disciplinary dismissal could not be considered excessive.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
The employee did not personally attend the disciplinary committee to provide explanations due to personal circumstances; however, this does not mean that the employer in this case failed to provide an opportunity for explanation. Accordingly, there was no procedural defect.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
① With respect to the workplace harassment alleged by the employee as the basis for requesting paid sick leave, both the company’s internal investigation and the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s investigation were closed with findings of no violations;
② With respect to the “depression and panic attack symptoms” alleged by the employee as an occupational disease, there was insufficient objective evidence to find that workplace harassment was the direct cause; and
③ The employer granted the employee paid leave during the period of investigation into the workplace harassment complaint, but the employee refused to accept the investigation results and continued to be absent even after the investigations were closed.
Taking these circumstances together, the employee’s long‑term, repeated absences constituted unauthorized absence and were recognized as just cause for disciplinary action.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
The employee’s unauthorized absences totaled 137 days between 13 March 2024 and 18 December 2024. Excluding the paid leave period during the workplace harassment investigation, the employee was absent without authorization for at least 15 days per month for at least four months. Therefore, the level of disciplinary dismissal could not be considered excessive.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
The employee did not personally attend the disciplinary committee to provide explanations due to personal circumstances; however, this does not mean that the employer in this case failed to provide an opportunity for explanation. Accordingly, there was no procedural defect. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Misunderstanding of Manager Assault)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal Rejected (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissal Rejected
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, unauthorized absence (allegations of workplace harassment and depression), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Misunderstanding of Manager Assault)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to unauthorized absence (allegations of workplace harassment and depression) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Unauthorized Absence (Allegations of Workplace Harassment and Depression).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
