Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Just Cause for Disciplinary Action (Workplace Sexual Harassment and Bullying)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 207)
- Date2026/02/16 04:09
- Read 215
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “just cause for disciplinary action (workplace sexual harassment and bullying).”
Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025부해859 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.11 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the disciplinary action was justified
The employee engaged in misconduct falling under Article 7 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) of the company’s Disciplinary Guidelines, including workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and negligence of duty by failing to perform job responsibilities. The employee showed no remorse whatsoever for the sexual harassment and bullying, and consistently treated the negligence of duty as a trivial matter. In light of these circumstances, the six‑month suspension without pay was not excessively severe, and there was no material defect in the disciplinary procedure that would render the disciplinary action invalid. Accordingly, the disciplinary action was found to be justified...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee received a six‑month suspension as a disciplinary measure for misconduct including workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and negligence of duty. The employee then applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair personnel action, arguing that the suspension effectively amounted to dismissal and that a transfer (change of workplace) had also been scheduled.
The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on the proportionality and procedural validity of the disciplinary measure, as well as on whether a transfer decision actually existed and whether there was any remedial interest in relation to such transfer. In this process, Labor Law Firm Law& analyzed the case based on legal principles accumulated through handling unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal disputes.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were:
“(i) Whether the six‑month suspension imposed for workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and negligence of duty was justified in terms of the level of discipline and procedure, and (ii) whether the ‘change of workplace’ stated in the Disciplinary Committee’s result notice constituted an actual transfer decision that could be the subject of a remedy application.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel found that the employee had engaged in misconduct corresponding to workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and failure to perform job duties (negligence of duty) as set out in Article 7 of the company’s Disciplinary Guidelines. Despite this, the employee showed no remorse for the sexual harassment and bullying, treated the negligence of duty lightly, and failed to improve their attitude. It was also confirmed that there was no serious defect in the disciplinary procedure that would render the disciplinary action invalid.
In view of the above, the Commission held that the disciplinary measure in this case—a six‑month suspension—could not be regarded as markedly excessive by social standards, nor could it be considered an abuse or overstepping of the employer’s discretion in exercising disciplinary authority. The disciplinary action was therefore deemed lawful.
With respect to the transfer alleged by the employee, the Commission noted that: (i) the resolutions of both the first‑instance and re‑examination Disciplinary Committees merely contained the phrase “change of workplace,” without specifying any concrete location or timing; (ii) the reference to “change of workplace” in the notification of the Disciplinary Committee’s decision was to be interpreted as a recommendation to the employer to issue a personnel order; and (iii) there was no evidence that the employer had actually convened a Personnel Committee, issued a transfer order to the employee, or that any transfer had taken effect.
Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the transfer decision had not yet been materialized into a concrete personnel order, that there was in fact no transfer disposition in existence that the employee could challenge, and therefore that there was no remedial interest with respect to the alleged transfer.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that serious misconduct that gravely disrupts corporate order—such as workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and repeated negligence of duty—may justify not only disciplinary dismissal but also severe disciplinary measures such as long‑term suspension. In particular, if an employee denies the facts or shows no remorse during the disciplinary process, the Labor Relations Commission is unlikely to view the level of discipline as excessively harsh or to mitigate it.
In addition, even if a Disciplinary Committee resolution or notice contains expressions such as “change of workplace planned,” if no actual personnel order has been issued, this may amount only to a pre‑effect stage before a transfer disposition takes legal effect. Therefore, when preparing an application for remedy for unfair transfer, employees should carefully secure evidence proving the existence of the transfer, such as the personnel order, the date of the order, and specific details of changes in workplace and duties.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, in cases involving workplace sexual harassment or bullying, it is crucial to clearly investigate and establish the facts of the misconduct, specify concrete grounds for discipline based on the rules of employment and disciplinary regulations, and faithfully observe procedures such as convening the Disciplinary Committee, giving notice, and providing the employee with an opportunity to be heard. As in this decision, if the employer comprehensively records the absence of remorse for sexual harassment and bullying, and the circumstances and attitude relating to negligence of duty, the likelihood that a severe disciplinary measure such as a six‑month suspension will be upheld by the Labor Relations Commission increases.
On the other hand, if a transfer or change of workplace is being considered, the employer should not stop at using abstract expressions such as “recommendation for change of workplace” at the Disciplinary Committee resolution stage. Instead, a separate Personnel Committee should be convened, and a personnel order specifying the concrete workplace, duties, and effective date of the transfer should be prepared and delivered. Otherwise, even if the employee challenges the transfer, the Labor Relations Commission may find that “no transfer disposition exists” and dismiss the application for lack of remedial interest. This can obscure the structure of the dispute and cause confusion in the company’s personnel strategy, so employers should exercise caution.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the disciplinary action was justified
The employee engaged in misconduct falling under Article 7 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) of the company’s Disciplinary Guidelines, including workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and negligence of duty by failing to perform job responsibilities. The employee showed no remorse whatsoever for the sexual harassment and bullying, and consistently treated the negligence of duty as a trivial matter. In light of these circumstances, the six‑month suspension was not excessively severe, and there was no serious defect in the disciplinary procedure that would render the disciplinary action invalid. Accordingly, the disciplinary action was justified.
B. Whether there was remedial interest in relation to the transfer disposition
The employee argued that the first‑instance and re‑examination Disciplinary Committees had resolved to transfer the employee. However, the first‑instance and re‑examination disciplinary resolutions did not specify any concrete location or timing for the “change of workplace.” The fact that “change of workplace” was stated when notifying the results of the first‑instance and re‑examination Disciplinary Committees is sufficiently interpretable as a recommendation to the employer to issue a personnel order. Since the employer did not convene a Personnel Committee to impose a transfer on the employee, and there is no fact that any transfer disposition took effect, there is no remedial interest in relation to the alleged transfer disposition.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the disciplinary action was justified
The employee engaged in misconduct falling under Article 7 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) of the company’s Disciplinary Guidelines, including workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and negligence of duty by failing to perform job responsibilities. The employee showed no remorse whatsoever for the sexual harassment and bullying, and consistently treated the negligence of duty as a trivial matter. In light of these circumstances, the six‑month suspension was not excessively severe, and there was no serious defect in the disciplinary procedure that would render the disciplinary action invalid. Accordingly, the disciplinary action was justified.
B. Whether there was remedial interest in relation to the transfer disposition
The employee argued that the first‑instance and re‑examination Disciplinary Committees had resolved to transfer the employee. However, the first‑instance and re‑examination disciplinary resolutions did not specify any concrete location or timing for the “change of workplace.” The fact that “change of workplace” was stated when notifying the results of the first‑instance and re‑examination Disciplinary Committees is sufficiently interpretable as a recommendation to the employer to issue a personnel order. Since the employer did not convene a Personnel Committee to impose a transfer on the employee, and there is no fact that any transfer disposition took effect, there is no remedial interest in relation to the alleged transfer disposition. /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expectation of Renewal (Failure to Meet Performance Evaluation Standards)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, just cause for disciplinary action (workplace sexual harassment and bullying), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, violation of company policy · non‑compliance with work instructions, 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, “‘Expectation of Renewal (Failure to Meet Performance Evaluation Standards)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to just cause for disciplinary action (workplace sexual harassment and bullying) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions on Just Cause for Disciplinary Action (Workplace Sexual Harassment and Bullying).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “just cause for disciplinary action (workplace sexual harassment and bullying).”
Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025부해859 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.11 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the disciplinary action was justified
The employee engaged in misconduct falling under Article 7 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) of the company’s Disciplinary Guidelines, including workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and negligence of duty by failing to perform job responsibilities. The employee showed no remorse whatsoever for the sexual harassment and bullying, and consistently treated the negligence of duty as a trivial matter. In light of these circumstances, the six‑month suspension without pay was not excessively severe, and there was no material defect in the disciplinary procedure that would render the disciplinary action invalid. Accordingly, the disciplinary action was found to be justified...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee received a six‑month suspension as a disciplinary measure for misconduct including workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and negligence of duty. The employee then applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal and unfair personnel action, arguing that the suspension effectively amounted to dismissal and that a transfer (change of workplace) had also been scheduled.
The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on the proportionality and procedural validity of the disciplinary measure, as well as on whether a transfer decision actually existed and whether there was any remedial interest in relation to such transfer. In this process, Labor Law Firm Law& analyzed the case based on legal principles accumulated through handling unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal disputes.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were:
“(i) Whether the six‑month suspension imposed for workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and negligence of duty was justified in terms of the level of discipline and procedure, and (ii) whether the ‘change of workplace’ stated in the Disciplinary Committee’s result notice constituted an actual transfer decision that could be the subject of a remedy application.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel found that the employee had engaged in misconduct corresponding to workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and failure to perform job duties (negligence of duty) as set out in Article 7 of the company’s Disciplinary Guidelines. Despite this, the employee showed no remorse for the sexual harassment and bullying, treated the negligence of duty lightly, and failed to improve their attitude. It was also confirmed that there was no serious defect in the disciplinary procedure that would render the disciplinary action invalid.
In view of the above, the Commission held that the disciplinary measure in this case—a six‑month suspension—could not be regarded as markedly excessive by social standards, nor could it be considered an abuse or overstepping of the employer’s discretion in exercising disciplinary authority. The disciplinary action was therefore deemed lawful.
With respect to the transfer alleged by the employee, the Commission noted that: (i) the resolutions of both the first‑instance and re‑examination Disciplinary Committees merely contained the phrase “change of workplace,” without specifying any concrete location or timing; (ii) the reference to “change of workplace” in the notification of the Disciplinary Committee’s decision was to be interpreted as a recommendation to the employer to issue a personnel order; and (iii) there was no evidence that the employer had actually convened a Personnel Committee, issued a transfer order to the employee, or that any transfer had taken effect.
Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the transfer decision had not yet been materialized into a concrete personnel order, that there was in fact no transfer disposition in existence that the employee could challenge, and therefore that there was no remedial interest with respect to the alleged transfer.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that serious misconduct that gravely disrupts corporate order—such as workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and repeated negligence of duty—may justify not only disciplinary dismissal but also severe disciplinary measures such as long‑term suspension. In particular, if an employee denies the facts or shows no remorse during the disciplinary process, the Labor Relations Commission is unlikely to view the level of discipline as excessively harsh or to mitigate it.
In addition, even if a Disciplinary Committee resolution or notice contains expressions such as “change of workplace planned,” if no actual personnel order has been issued, this may amount only to a pre‑effect stage before a transfer disposition takes legal effect. Therefore, when preparing an application for remedy for unfair transfer, employees should carefully secure evidence proving the existence of the transfer, such as the personnel order, the date of the order, and specific details of changes in workplace and duties.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, in cases involving workplace sexual harassment or bullying, it is crucial to clearly investigate and establish the facts of the misconduct, specify concrete grounds for discipline based on the rules of employment and disciplinary regulations, and faithfully observe procedures such as convening the Disciplinary Committee, giving notice, and providing the employee with an opportunity to be heard. As in this decision, if the employer comprehensively records the absence of remorse for sexual harassment and bullying, and the circumstances and attitude relating to negligence of duty, the likelihood that a severe disciplinary measure such as a six‑month suspension will be upheld by the Labor Relations Commission increases.
On the other hand, if a transfer or change of workplace is being considered, the employer should not stop at using abstract expressions such as “recommendation for change of workplace” at the Disciplinary Committee resolution stage. Instead, a separate Personnel Committee should be convened, and a personnel order specifying the concrete workplace, duties, and effective date of the transfer should be prepared and delivered. Otherwise, even if the employee challenges the transfer, the Labor Relations Commission may find that “no transfer disposition exists” and dismiss the application for lack of remedial interest. This can obscure the structure of the dispute and cause confusion in the company’s personnel strategy, so employers should exercise caution.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the disciplinary action was justified
The employee engaged in misconduct falling under Article 7 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) of the company’s Disciplinary Guidelines, including workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and negligence of duty by failing to perform job responsibilities. The employee showed no remorse whatsoever for the sexual harassment and bullying, and consistently treated the negligence of duty as a trivial matter. In light of these circumstances, the six‑month suspension was not excessively severe, and there was no serious defect in the disciplinary procedure that would render the disciplinary action invalid. Accordingly, the disciplinary action was justified.
B. Whether there was remedial interest in relation to the transfer disposition
The employee argued that the first‑instance and re‑examination Disciplinary Committees had resolved to transfer the employee. However, the first‑instance and re‑examination disciplinary resolutions did not specify any concrete location or timing for the “change of workplace.” The fact that “change of workplace” was stated when notifying the results of the first‑instance and re‑examination Disciplinary Committees is sufficiently interpretable as a recommendation to the employer to issue a personnel order. Since the employer did not convene a Personnel Committee to impose a transfer on the employee, and there is no fact that any transfer disposition took effect, there is no remedial interest in relation to the alleged transfer disposition.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the disciplinary action was justified
The employee engaged in misconduct falling under Article 7 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action) of the company’s Disciplinary Guidelines, including workplace sexual harassment, workplace bullying, and negligence of duty by failing to perform job responsibilities. The employee showed no remorse whatsoever for the sexual harassment and bullying, and consistently treated the negligence of duty as a trivial matter. In light of these circumstances, the six‑month suspension was not excessively severe, and there was no serious defect in the disciplinary procedure that would render the disciplinary action invalid. Accordingly, the disciplinary action was justified.
B. Whether there was remedial interest in relation to the transfer disposition
The employee argued that the first‑instance and re‑examination Disciplinary Committees had resolved to transfer the employee. However, the first‑instance and re‑examination disciplinary resolutions did not specify any concrete location or timing for the “change of workplace.” The fact that “change of workplace” was stated when notifying the results of the first‑instance and re‑examination Disciplinary Committees is sufficiently interpretable as a recommendation to the employer to issue a personnel order. Since the employer did not convene a Personnel Committee to impose a transfer on the employee, and there is no fact that any transfer disposition took effect, there is no remedial interest in relation to the alleged transfer disposition. /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expectation of Renewal (Failure to Meet Performance Evaluation Standards)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, just cause for disciplinary action (workplace sexual harassment and bullying), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, violation of company policy · non‑compliance with work instructions, 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, “‘Expectation of Renewal (Failure to Meet Performance Evaluation Standards)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to just cause for disciplinary action (workplace sexual harassment and bullying) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions on Just Cause for Disciplinary Action (Workplace Sexual Harassment and Bullying).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
