Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Severity (Suspension in Hospital for Workplace Bullying)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 228)
- Date2026/02/23 04:08
- Read 235
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (suspension in hospital for workplace bullying).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision where, on the issue of “disciplinary severity (suspension in hospital for workplace bullying),” the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed).
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9242 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.29 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed – Whether the three grounds acknowledged by the employer in the course of the workplace bullying investigation against the worker (① excessive allocation of work to the complainant, resulting in increased workload and heightened physical and mental burden on the complainant, ② leaving work with tasks unfinished, thereby increasing the complainant’s workload, ③ creating extreme anxiety through acts such as secret recording, writing down everything in a notebook, screen captures, and sending a barrage of text (messenger) messages during work) all constitute workplace bullying in the workplace and thus grounds for discipline …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker employed at a hospital was investigated and found to be a perpetrator of workplace bullying and was given a disciplinary suspension of one month. The worker regarded this as unfair discipline equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline (disciplinary severity), and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. It ultimately ruled in favor of the employer, and the worker’s application for remedy was dismissed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a hospital’s one‑month suspension imposed for workplace bullying constitutes unfair dismissal (unfair discipline) in terms of substantive grounds for discipline, the severity of the discipline, and the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the three acts acknowledged by the employer in the course of the workplace bullying investigation (excessive allocation of work and the resulting increase in physical and mental burden, leaving work with tasks unfinished thereby increasing a colleague’s workload, and creating extreme anxiety through secret recording, detailed note‑taking, screen captures, and a barrage of messenger messages) all constituted workplace bullying. It also noted that, although the same worker had been disciplined twice in the past, the grounds and procedures for the present discipline were distinct, and the grounds for discipline in each case had been acknowledged. In addition, the complainant had demanded severe punishment, and there was a recognized need for heavy discipline from the perspective of maintaining order within the hospital organization.
Even though the worker argued that it was unfair that only she had been disciplined three times over three years, the Commission held that a one‑month suspension could not be regarded as manifestly unreasonable by social norms and fell within the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline. It further found no serious defect in the disciplinary procedures, as the worker had been given the opportunity to submit a written statement and to explain herself before the personnel committee.
In conclusion, the Commission held that, with respect to the grounds for discipline, the severity of the discipline, and the disciplinary procedures, there was no abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority, and therefore determined that this dismissal disposition was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that conduct related to workplace bullying, when it goes beyond mere conflict or misunderstanding and instead imposes an excessive workload on colleagues or creates anxiety through constant monitoring and pressure, can fully constitute grounds for discipline.
In addition, prior disciplinary history, co‑workers’ demands for severe punishment, and the characteristics of the organization (such as hospitals, which require a high degree of teamwork) can all work to the worker’s disadvantage in determining the level of discipline. Accordingly, from the early stages of conflict, efforts should be made to prevent disputes through methods such as keeping records, engaging in dialogue, and using mediation procedures.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important in the course of investigating workplace bullying to carefully organize the specific facts and clearly link the grounds for discipline to the provisions on workplace bullying in the rules of employment and personnel regulations.
At the stage of determining the severity of discipline, it is advisable to comprehensively consider factors such as the worker’s prior disciplinary history, the victim’s demands, and the impact on organizational order, while also ensuring that the level of discipline (such as suspension or pay reduction) is not evaluated as manifestly excessive by social norms. To this end, internal standards for discipline should be appropriately established and maintained.
This decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission reconfirms that, even when discipline imposed for workplace bullying is contested as unfair dismissal, the same three‑step legal framework applies: (1) the existence of grounds for discipline, (2) compliance with disciplinary procedures, and (3) the social reasonableness of the severity of the discipline. In practice, it is particularly important to note that, by consulting with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and by meticulously preparing relevant evidence and procedures from the Labor Relations Commission stage, one can significantly influence the outcome of the dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The three grounds acknowledged by the employer in the course of the workplace bullying investigation against the worker (① excessive allocation of work to the complainant, resulting in increased workload and heightened physical and mental burden on the complainant, ② leaving work with tasks unfinished, thereby increasing the complainant’s workload, ③ creating extreme anxiety through acts such as secret recording, writing down everything in a notebook, screen captures, and sending a barrage of text (messenger) messages during work) were all recognized as acts of workplace bullying and thus as grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the severity of the discipline was appropriate
The worker argued that it was inequitable that only she had been disciplined three times over three years. However, ① the first discipline was a reprimand imposed for speaking informally (using banmal) to a superior, ② the second was a three‑month suspension imposed for reasons such as neglect of duty and disturbing the hierarchical order; while the Labor Relations Commission had found the severity excessive, all grounds for discipline in that case were acknowledged, ③ the third discipline was imposed in response to a workplace bullying complaint, and all three cases involved distinct grounds for discipline and procedures, and ④ the complainant was demanding severe punishment of the worker, and as a hospital there was a need for heavy discipline to maintain hospital order.
Taking all of these into account, the Commission determined that a one‑month suspension imposed on the worker could not be regarded as having lost its reasonableness to such an extent, by social norms, as to fall outside the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The worker had the opportunity to explain herself through a written statement and before the personnel committee, and therefore any procedural defects were not significant.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The three grounds acknowledged by the employer in the course of the workplace bullying investigation against the worker (① excessive allocation of work to the complainant, resulting in increased workload and heightened physical and mental burden on the complainant, ② leaving work with tasks unfinished, thereby increasing the complainant’s workload, ③ creating extreme anxiety through acts such as secret recording, writing down everything in a notebook, screen captures, and sending a barrage of text (messenger) messages during work) were all recognized as acts of workplace bullying and thus as grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the severity of the discipline was appropriate
The worker argued that it was inequitable that only she had been disciplined three times over three years. However, ① the first discipline was a reprimand imposed for speaking informally (using banmal) to a superior, ② the second was a three‑month suspension imposed for reasons such as neglect of duty and disturbing the hierarchical order; while the Labor Relations Commission had found the severity excessive, all grounds for discipline in that case were acknowledged, ③ the third discipline was imposed in response to a workplace bullying complaint, and all three cases involved distinct grounds for discipline and procedures, and ④ the complainant was demanding severe punishment of the worker, and as a hospital there was a need for heavy discipline to maintain hospital order.
Taking all of these into account, the Commission determined that a one‑month suspension imposed on the worker could not be regarded as having lost its reasonableness to such an extent, by social norms, as to fall outside the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The worker had the opportunity to explain herself through a written statement and before the personnel committee, and therefore any procedural defects were not significant.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made Over the Phone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Unfair Dismissal (Cancellation of Special Re‑entry Permission for Foreign Worker)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (suspension in hospital for workplace bullying), workplace bullying, disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary action), 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 (Cancellation of Special Re‑entry Permission for Foreign Worker)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (suspension in hospital for workplace bullying) at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Suspension in Hospital for Workplace Bullying).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision where, on the issue of “disciplinary severity (suspension in hospital for workplace bullying),” the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed).
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9242 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.29 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed – Whether the three grounds acknowledged by the employer in the course of the workplace bullying investigation against the worker (① excessive allocation of work to the complainant, resulting in increased workload and heightened physical and mental burden on the complainant, ② leaving work with tasks unfinished, thereby increasing the complainant’s workload, ③ creating extreme anxiety through acts such as secret recording, writing down everything in a notebook, screen captures, and sending a barrage of text (messenger) messages during work) all constitute workplace bullying in the workplace and thus grounds for discipline …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker employed at a hospital was investigated and found to be a perpetrator of workplace bullying and was given a disciplinary suspension of one month. The worker regarded this as unfair discipline equivalent to unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline (disciplinary severity), and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. It ultimately ruled in favor of the employer, and the worker’s application for remedy was dismissed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a hospital’s one‑month suspension imposed for workplace bullying constitutes unfair dismissal (unfair discipline) in terms of substantive grounds for discipline, the severity of the discipline, and the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the three acts acknowledged by the employer in the course of the workplace bullying investigation (excessive allocation of work and the resulting increase in physical and mental burden, leaving work with tasks unfinished thereby increasing a colleague’s workload, and creating extreme anxiety through secret recording, detailed note‑taking, screen captures, and a barrage of messenger messages) all constituted workplace bullying. It also noted that, although the same worker had been disciplined twice in the past, the grounds and procedures for the present discipline were distinct, and the grounds for discipline in each case had been acknowledged. In addition, the complainant had demanded severe punishment, and there was a recognized need for heavy discipline from the perspective of maintaining order within the hospital organization.
Even though the worker argued that it was unfair that only she had been disciplined three times over three years, the Commission held that a one‑month suspension could not be regarded as manifestly unreasonable by social norms and fell within the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline. It further found no serious defect in the disciplinary procedures, as the worker had been given the opportunity to submit a written statement and to explain herself before the personnel committee.
In conclusion, the Commission held that, with respect to the grounds for discipline, the severity of the discipline, and the disciplinary procedures, there was no abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority, and therefore determined that this dismissal disposition was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that conduct related to workplace bullying, when it goes beyond mere conflict or misunderstanding and instead imposes an excessive workload on colleagues or creates anxiety through constant monitoring and pressure, can fully constitute grounds for discipline.
In addition, prior disciplinary history, co‑workers’ demands for severe punishment, and the characteristics of the organization (such as hospitals, which require a high degree of teamwork) can all work to the worker’s disadvantage in determining the level of discipline. Accordingly, from the early stages of conflict, efforts should be made to prevent disputes through methods such as keeping records, engaging in dialogue, and using mediation procedures.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important in the course of investigating workplace bullying to carefully organize the specific facts and clearly link the grounds for discipline to the provisions on workplace bullying in the rules of employment and personnel regulations.
At the stage of determining the severity of discipline, it is advisable to comprehensively consider factors such as the worker’s prior disciplinary history, the victim’s demands, and the impact on organizational order, while also ensuring that the level of discipline (such as suspension or pay reduction) is not evaluated as manifestly excessive by social norms. To this end, internal standards for discipline should be appropriately established and maintained.
This decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission reconfirms that, even when discipline imposed for workplace bullying is contested as unfair dismissal, the same three‑step legal framework applies: (1) the existence of grounds for discipline, (2) compliance with disciplinary procedures, and (3) the social reasonableness of the severity of the discipline. In practice, it is particularly important to note that, by consulting with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and by meticulously preparing relevant evidence and procedures from the Labor Relations Commission stage, one can significantly influence the outcome of the dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The three grounds acknowledged by the employer in the course of the workplace bullying investigation against the worker (① excessive allocation of work to the complainant, resulting in increased workload and heightened physical and mental burden on the complainant, ② leaving work with tasks unfinished, thereby increasing the complainant’s workload, ③ creating extreme anxiety through acts such as secret recording, writing down everything in a notebook, screen captures, and sending a barrage of text (messenger) messages during work) were all recognized as acts of workplace bullying and thus as grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the severity of the discipline was appropriate
The worker argued that it was inequitable that only she had been disciplined three times over three years. However, ① the first discipline was a reprimand imposed for speaking informally (using banmal) to a superior, ② the second was a three‑month suspension imposed for reasons such as neglect of duty and disturbing the hierarchical order; while the Labor Relations Commission had found the severity excessive, all grounds for discipline in that case were acknowledged, ③ the third discipline was imposed in response to a workplace bullying complaint, and all three cases involved distinct grounds for discipline and procedures, and ④ the complainant was demanding severe punishment of the worker, and as a hospital there was a need for heavy discipline to maintain hospital order.
Taking all of these into account, the Commission determined that a one‑month suspension imposed on the worker could not be regarded as having lost its reasonableness to such an extent, by social norms, as to fall outside the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The worker had the opportunity to explain herself through a written statement and before the personnel committee, and therefore any procedural defects were not significant.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The three grounds acknowledged by the employer in the course of the workplace bullying investigation against the worker (① excessive allocation of work to the complainant, resulting in increased workload and heightened physical and mental burden on the complainant, ② leaving work with tasks unfinished, thereby increasing the complainant’s workload, ③ creating extreme anxiety through acts such as secret recording, writing down everything in a notebook, screen captures, and sending a barrage of text (messenger) messages during work) were all recognized as acts of workplace bullying and thus as grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the severity of the discipline was appropriate
The worker argued that it was inequitable that only she had been disciplined three times over three years. However, ① the first discipline was a reprimand imposed for speaking informally (using banmal) to a superior, ② the second was a three‑month suspension imposed for reasons such as neglect of duty and disturbing the hierarchical order; while the Labor Relations Commission had found the severity excessive, all grounds for discipline in that case were acknowledged, ③ the third discipline was imposed in response to a workplace bullying complaint, and all three cases involved distinct grounds for discipline and procedures, and ④ the complainant was demanding severe punishment of the worker, and as a hospital there was a need for heavy discipline to maintain hospital order.
Taking all of these into account, the Commission determined that a one‑month suspension imposed on the worker could not be regarded as having lost its reasonableness to such an extent, by social norms, as to fall outside the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The worker had the opportunity to explain herself through a written statement and before the personnel committee, and therefore any procedural defects were not significant.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made Over the Phone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Unfair Dismissal (Cancellation of Special Re‑entry Permission for Foreign Worker)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (suspension in hospital for workplace bullying), workplace bullying, disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary action), 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 (Cancellation of Special Re‑entry Permission for Foreign Worker)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (suspension in hospital for workplace bullying) at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Suspension in Hospital for Workplace Bullying).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
