Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Disciplinary Procedure and Sanction (Sexual Harassment – Agreed Dismissal)” (Unfair Dismissal 225)
- Date2026/02/22 04:08
- Read 215
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employee fully prevailed in an unfair dismissal claim on the issues of “disciplinary procedure and sanction (sexual harassment – agreed dismissal).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9084 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.02 · Outcome: Full Recognition
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Except for the employee’s sexual remarks and conduct that could be recognized as grounds for discipline, the victim’s remaining claims of sexual harassment (physical contact and other sexual conduct) could not be accepted as grounds for discipline, because no objective evidence supporting these claims, apart from the victim’s own statements, could be identified.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, following a workplace sexual harassment report, the employer imposed dismissal on the employee, who then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Commission focused on whether dismissal was appropriate given that only part of the alleged sexual harassment was recognized as grounds for discipline, and whether there were procedural defects such as failure to convene a disciplinary committee and failure to provide an opportunity to be heard.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: in a sexual harassment matter where objective evidence beyond the victim’s statements is limited, to what extent grounds for discipline can be recognized; whether dismissal, the most severe disciplinary measure, is justified even when only some of the alleged grounds are accepted; and, further, whether a dismissal is valid when imposed without complying with the disciplinary committee procedures and opportunity to be heard as prescribed in the rules of employment.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that only part of the employee’s sexual remarks and conduct alleged by the victim could be recognized as grounds for discipline in light of the objective materials and the relationship between the statements, and that the remaining allegations of physical contact and other sexual conduct could not be regarded as grounds for discipline because there were no objective materials supporting them apart from the victim’s statements. Nevertheless, the employer imposed dismissal solely on the basis that there was a three‑party agreement on dismissal among the employer, the employee, and the victim, even though the misconduct recognized was at a level for which a minor disciplinary sanction would be appropriate. The panel held that this significantly departed from the principle of proportionality in determining the level of disciplinary sanction. It also noted that, although the rules of employment required that discipline be imposed by a disciplinary committee, the employer convened only a personnel committee without convening a disciplinary committee, and that even if the personnel committee were to be regarded as having the character of a disciplinary committee, the employer failed to give the employee three days’ prior notice of attendance and did not provide an opportunity to be heard.
In light of the above, the panel held that the dismissal in this case failed to satisfy the requirements regarding the scope of grounds for discipline, proportionality of the level of sanction, and lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure, and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even in sensitive matters such as sexual harassment, the scope of the grounds for discipline that the employer must allege and prove must be clear, and parts for which there is insufficient objective evidence beyond the victim’s statements can be contested separately. In addition, whether procedural rights under the rules of employment—such as convening a disciplinary committee, prior notice of attendance, and providing an opportunity to be heard—have been properly observed can become a key issue in disputes over unfair dismissal. Therefore, if you receive notice of dismissal or a severe disciplinary measure, you should carefully organize the relevant provisions and the actual course of events, and then consult with experts such as the Labor Relations Commission or Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when a workplace sexual harassment report is filed, utmost care must be taken to protect the victim and prevent secondary harm. On the premise that the employer bears the responsibility to investigate and prove the existence and scope of the grounds for discipline, the credibility of statements, related materials, and surrounding circumstances must be systematically collected and organized. Furthermore, even when sexual harassment is recognized, the level of discipline should be determined comprehensively in light of the seriousness of the misconduct, its repetitiveness, the employee’s duties and position, and the impact on the organization. Employers should keep in mind that if they fail to faithfully comply with the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment and collective agreements—such as convening a disciplinary committee, exclusion and challenge of committee members, notice of attendance, and providing an opportunity to be heard—the dismissal may be found to be unfair by the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Except for the employee’s sexual remarks and conduct that could be recognized as grounds for discipline, the victim’s remaining claims of sexual harassment (physical contact and other sexual conduct) could not be accepted as grounds for discipline, because no objective evidence supporting these claims, apart from the victim’s own statements, could be identified.
B. Appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction
As a result of the employer’s investigation into the sexual harassment report, only part of the victim’s allegations was recognized as grounds for discipline, and it was a case in which a minor disciplinary sanction was deemed appropriate. Nevertheless, the employer imposed dismissal on the employee on the ground that there was a three‑party agreement on dismissal among the employer, the employee, and the victim. This runs counter to the principle of proportionality in determining the level of disciplinary sanction.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Under Article 84 of the rules of employment, discipline must be imposed by a disciplinary committee, but only a personnel committee was convened without convening a disciplinary committee, which is improper. Even if the personnel committee were regarded as having the character of the disciplinary committee, the employer’s failure to give the employee notice of attendance at least three days prior to the convening of the disciplinary committee and failure to provide an opportunity to be heard constitutes a defect in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Except for the employee’s sexual remarks and conduct that could be recognized as grounds for discipline, the victim’s remaining claims of sexual harassment (physical contact and other sexual conduct) could not be accepted as grounds for discipline, because no objective evidence supporting these claims, apart from the victim’s own statements, could be identified.
B. Appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction
As a result of the employer’s investigation into the sexual harassment report, only part of the victim’s allegations was recognized as grounds for discipline, and it was a case in which a minor disciplinary sanction was deemed appropriate. Nevertheless, the employer imposed dismissal on the employee on the ground that there was a three‑party agreement on dismissal among the employer, the employee, and the victim. This runs counter to the principle of proportionality in determining the level of disciplinary sanction.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Under Article 84 of the rules of employment, discipline must be imposed by a disciplinary committee, but only a personnel committee was convened without convening a disciplinary committee, which is improper. Even if the personnel committee were regarded as having the character of the disciplinary committee, the employer’s failure to give the employee notice of attendance at least three days prior to the convening of the disciplinary committee and failure to provide an opportunity to be heard constitutes a defect in the disciplinary procedure. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Disciplinary Sanction (Commuting · Leaving the Workplace)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary procedure and sanction (sexual harassment – agreed dismissal), disciplinary dismissal, others, 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 Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Disciplinary Sanction (Commuting · Leaving the Workplace)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary procedure and sanction (sexual harassment – agreed dismissal) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Procedure and Sanction (Sexual Harassment – Agreed Dismissal)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employee fully prevailed in an unfair dismissal claim on the issues of “disciplinary procedure and sanction (sexual harassment – agreed dismissal).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9084 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.02 · Outcome: Full Recognition
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Except for the employee’s sexual remarks and conduct that could be recognized as grounds for discipline, the victim’s remaining claims of sexual harassment (physical contact and other sexual conduct) could not be accepted as grounds for discipline, because no objective evidence supporting these claims, apart from the victim’s own statements, could be identified.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, following a workplace sexual harassment report, the employer imposed dismissal on the employee, who then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Commission focused on whether dismissal was appropriate given that only part of the alleged sexual harassment was recognized as grounds for discipline, and whether there were procedural defects such as failure to convene a disciplinary committee and failure to provide an opportunity to be heard.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: in a sexual harassment matter where objective evidence beyond the victim’s statements is limited, to what extent grounds for discipline can be recognized; whether dismissal, the most severe disciplinary measure, is justified even when only some of the alleged grounds are accepted; and, further, whether a dismissal is valid when imposed without complying with the disciplinary committee procedures and opportunity to be heard as prescribed in the rules of employment.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that only part of the employee’s sexual remarks and conduct alleged by the victim could be recognized as grounds for discipline in light of the objective materials and the relationship between the statements, and that the remaining allegations of physical contact and other sexual conduct could not be regarded as grounds for discipline because there were no objective materials supporting them apart from the victim’s statements. Nevertheless, the employer imposed dismissal solely on the basis that there was a three‑party agreement on dismissal among the employer, the employee, and the victim, even though the misconduct recognized was at a level for which a minor disciplinary sanction would be appropriate. The panel held that this significantly departed from the principle of proportionality in determining the level of disciplinary sanction. It also noted that, although the rules of employment required that discipline be imposed by a disciplinary committee, the employer convened only a personnel committee without convening a disciplinary committee, and that even if the personnel committee were to be regarded as having the character of a disciplinary committee, the employer failed to give the employee three days’ prior notice of attendance and did not provide an opportunity to be heard.
In light of the above, the panel held that the dismissal in this case failed to satisfy the requirements regarding the scope of grounds for discipline, proportionality of the level of sanction, and lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure, and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even in sensitive matters such as sexual harassment, the scope of the grounds for discipline that the employer must allege and prove must be clear, and parts for which there is insufficient objective evidence beyond the victim’s statements can be contested separately. In addition, whether procedural rights under the rules of employment—such as convening a disciplinary committee, prior notice of attendance, and providing an opportunity to be heard—have been properly observed can become a key issue in disputes over unfair dismissal. Therefore, if you receive notice of dismissal or a severe disciplinary measure, you should carefully organize the relevant provisions and the actual course of events, and then consult with experts such as the Labor Relations Commission or Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when a workplace sexual harassment report is filed, utmost care must be taken to protect the victim and prevent secondary harm. On the premise that the employer bears the responsibility to investigate and prove the existence and scope of the grounds for discipline, the credibility of statements, related materials, and surrounding circumstances must be systematically collected and organized. Furthermore, even when sexual harassment is recognized, the level of discipline should be determined comprehensively in light of the seriousness of the misconduct, its repetitiveness, the employee’s duties and position, and the impact on the organization. Employers should keep in mind that if they fail to faithfully comply with the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment and collective agreements—such as convening a disciplinary committee, exclusion and challenge of committee members, notice of attendance, and providing an opportunity to be heard—the dismissal may be found to be unfair by the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Except for the employee’s sexual remarks and conduct that could be recognized as grounds for discipline, the victim’s remaining claims of sexual harassment (physical contact and other sexual conduct) could not be accepted as grounds for discipline, because no objective evidence supporting these claims, apart from the victim’s own statements, could be identified.
B. Appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction
As a result of the employer’s investigation into the sexual harassment report, only part of the victim’s allegations was recognized as grounds for discipline, and it was a case in which a minor disciplinary sanction was deemed appropriate. Nevertheless, the employer imposed dismissal on the employee on the ground that there was a three‑party agreement on dismissal among the employer, the employee, and the victim. This runs counter to the principle of proportionality in determining the level of disciplinary sanction.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Under Article 84 of the rules of employment, discipline must be imposed by a disciplinary committee, but only a personnel committee was convened without convening a disciplinary committee, which is improper. Even if the personnel committee were regarded as having the character of the disciplinary committee, the employer’s failure to give the employee notice of attendance at least three days prior to the convening of the disciplinary committee and failure to provide an opportunity to be heard constitutes a defect in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
Except for the employee’s sexual remarks and conduct that could be recognized as grounds for discipline, the victim’s remaining claims of sexual harassment (physical contact and other sexual conduct) could not be accepted as grounds for discipline, because no objective evidence supporting these claims, apart from the victim’s own statements, could be identified.
B. Appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction
As a result of the employer’s investigation into the sexual harassment report, only part of the victim’s allegations was recognized as grounds for discipline, and it was a case in which a minor disciplinary sanction was deemed appropriate. Nevertheless, the employer imposed dismissal on the employee on the ground that there was a three‑party agreement on dismissal among the employer, the employee, and the victim. This runs counter to the principle of proportionality in determining the level of disciplinary sanction.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Under Article 84 of the rules of employment, discipline must be imposed by a disciplinary committee, but only a personnel committee was convened without convening a disciplinary committee, which is improper. Even if the personnel committee were regarded as having the character of the disciplinary committee, the employer’s failure to give the employee notice of attendance at least three days prior to the convening of the disciplinary committee and failure to provide an opportunity to be heard constitutes a defect in the disciplinary procedure. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Disciplinary Sanction (Commuting · Leaving the Workplace)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary procedure and sanction (sexual harassment – agreed dismissal), disciplinary dismissal, others, 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 Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Disciplinary Sanction (Commuting · Leaving the Workplace)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary procedure and sanction (sexual harassment – agreed dismissal) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Procedure and Sanction (Sexual Harassment – Agreed Dismissal)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
