Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Insufficient Proof (Sexual Harassment Disciplinary Dismissal)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 256)
- Date2026/03/04 04:14
- Read 214
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee partially prevailed on the issue of “insufficient proof (sexual harassment disciplinary dismissal).”
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employee partially prevailed on the issue of “insufficient proof (sexual harassment disciplinary dismissal).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae223 ○○○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2026.01.16 · Result: Partially upheld
Summary of key issues: … The employer imposed disciplinary action; however, the employee consistently denied having engaged in any physical contact or inappropriate remarks and disputes the very existence of the grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer, relying on the findings of an internal investigative body, imposed a disciplinary dismissal on the employee for alleged sexual harassment. The employee then filed an application with the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission seeking relief for unfair dismissal. In addition, the parties also disputed the employer’s suspension of the employee’s experiential program operations (removal from duties), but this aspect centered on whether the statutory exclusion period had expired.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are: (i) whether a disciplinary dismissal for sexual harassment is justified when there is insufficient objective proof of the underlying facts and the dismissal is based solely on the results of an internal investigation, and (ii) whether a separate measure of removal from duties can no longer be challenged due to the lapse of the exclusion period under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found it difficult to conclude that the sexual harassment, which formed the basis for the disciplinary action, had been proven. The panel noted that the materials submitted by the employer consisted only of documents setting out the results of an internal investigation conducted pursuant to in-house procedures; that there were no specific witness statements or objective materials proving that the alleged witness actually visited the scene at the time of the incident; and that even the complainants’ written statements had not been submitted, making it difficult to verify whether the contents of the investigation report were consistent with their actual statements.
Furthermore, when the specific circumstances and context of the remarks at issue were considered in their entirety, the panel found it difficult to immediately conclude that they constituted a breach of the duty to maintain dignity. By contrast, the application for relief concerning the suspension of the experiential program (removal from duties) was filed more than three months after the date of that measure. Accordingly, the panel held that the application was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period for unfair dismissal relief applications prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, and therefore should be dismissed without any need to examine the legitimacy of the measure.
Ultimately, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair because the employer failed to prove the existence of the grounds for discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even in cases of disciplinary dismissal involving infringement of personality rights, such as sexual harassment or verbal abuse, it is important to clearly recognize that the burden of proof regarding the existence of the grounds for discipline and the presence of just cause lies with the employer. However, if you wish to challenge separate personnel measures such as removal from duties, transfer, or suspension, you must file an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission within three months from the date of the measure; otherwise, the Commission will not conduct a substantive review. Care must therefore be taken not to miss the exclusion period.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
When imposing a disciplinary dismissal in sensitive matters such as sexual harassment, employers should not rely solely on an internal investigation report. They must secure sufficient materials that can objectively verify the credibility of statements—such as written statements from complainants and witnesses, recordings of their statements, and related electronic records. Employers should also comprehensively review the specific context of the remarks or conduct at issue, their frequency or repetitiveness, and the extent of any harm, and then carefully determine whether, under social norms, it has become difficult to continue the employment relationship and whether the intended purpose cannot be achieved through lesser disciplinary measures such as a pay cut or suspension.
Separately, when taking measures such as suspending an experiential program or otherwise removing an employee from duties, employers should clearly document the timing, reasons, and legal or internal grounds for such measures in order to reduce future disputes over the starting date of the exclusion period and the legitimacy of the measures.
This decision of the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, an “internal investigation” alone is insufficient to prove the grounds for discipline, and that management of the exclusion period is crucial for applications for relief against personnel measures such as removal from duties. If you require assistance with Labor Relations Commission proceedings or the design of disciplinary measures, it is advisable to conduct a prior risk review with the advice of a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Decision Details
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… The employer imposed disciplinary action; however, the employee has consistently denied having engaged in any physical contact or inappropriate remarks and disputes the very existence of the grounds for discipline.
3) In response, the employer argues that the existence of the grounds for discipline has been proven based on the results of an investigation by an internal investigative body. However, this is nothing more than a determination made pursuant to in-house procedures, and it is difficult to regard the investigation results themselves as materials that objectively prove the existence of the grounds for discipline.
4) Given the nature of the case, no objective physical evidence exists, and the existence of the grounds for discipline must inevitably be determined based on the statements of the persons involved. Nevertheless, the employer failed to submit materials that could objectively confirm or verify the credibility of those statements.
a) No specific statement from the witness identified as having observed the incident on site, nor any objective material proving that this witness actually visited the scene at the time of the incident, was submitted. The complainants’ written statements were also not submitted, making it difficult to verify whether the contents recorded in the internal investigative body’s report are consistent with the actual statements made.
b) Furthermore, when the specific circumstances and context of the remarks at issue are taken into account, it is difficult to immediately conclude that they constitute a breach of the duty to maintain dignity.
b. Legitimacy of the Removal-from-Duties Measure
The employee filed an application for relief, asserting that the employer unfairly suspended the employee’s operation of the experiential program. However, this application was filed more than three months after the date on which the program operation was put on hold. Accordingly, it was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period (three months from the date of the unfair dismissal, etc.) prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, and there is therefore no need to further examine the legitimacy of the measure.
c. Conclusion
Because the existence of the grounds for discipline against the employee cannot be recognized, the disciplinary action is unfair. The application for relief regarding the removal-from-duties measure was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period.…
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… The employer imposed disciplinary action; however, the employee has consistently denied having engaged in any physical contact or inappropriate remarks and disputes the very existence of the grounds for discipline.
3) In response, the employer argues that the existence of the grounds for discipline has been proven based on the results of an investigation by an internal investigative body. However, this is nothing more than a determination made pursuant to in-house procedures, and it is difficult to regard the investigation results themselves as materials that objectively prove the existence of the grounds for discipline.
4) Given the nature of the case, no objective physical evidence exists, and the existence of the grounds for discipline must inevitably be determined based on the statements of the persons involved. Nevertheless, the employer failed to submit materials that could objectively confirm or verify the credibility of those statements.
a) No specific statement from the witness identified as having observed the incident on site, nor any objective material proving that this witness actually visited the scene at the time of the incident, was submitted. The complainants’ written statements were also not submitted, making it difficult to verify whether the contents recorded in the internal investigative body’s report are consistent with the actual statements made.
b) Furthermore, when the specific circumstances and context of the remarks at issue are taken into account, it is difficult to immediately conclude that they constitute a breach of the duty to maintain dignity.
b. Legitimacy of the Removal-from-Duties Measure
The employee filed an application for relief, asserting that the employer unfairly suspended the employee’s operation of the experiential program. However, this application was filed more than three months after the date on which the program operation was put on hold. Accordingly, it was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period (three months from the date of the unfair dismissal, etc.) prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, and there is therefore no need to further examine the legitimacy of the measure.
c. Conclusion
Because the existence of the grounds for discipline against the employee cannot be recognized, the disciplinary action is unfair. The application for relief regarding the removal-from-duties measure was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period.… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - Case number: Dismissed
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Authenticity of Resignation Letter (Handwritten Resignation for Personal Reasons)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, insufficient proof (sexual harassment disciplinary 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Authenticity of Resignation Letter (Handwritten Resignation for Personal Reasons)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to insufficient proof (sexual harassment disciplinary dismissal) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Insufficient Proof (Sexual Harassment Disciplinary Dismissal).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employee partially prevailed on the issue of “insufficient proof (sexual harassment disciplinary dismissal).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae223 ○○○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2026.01.16 · Result: Partially upheld
Summary of key issues: … The employer imposed disciplinary action; however, the employee consistently denied having engaged in any physical contact or inappropriate remarks and disputes the very existence of the grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer, relying on the findings of an internal investigative body, imposed a disciplinary dismissal on the employee for alleged sexual harassment. The employee then filed an application with the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission seeking relief for unfair dismissal. In addition, the parties also disputed the employer’s suspension of the employee’s experiential program operations (removal from duties), but this aspect centered on whether the statutory exclusion period had expired.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are: (i) whether a disciplinary dismissal for sexual harassment is justified when there is insufficient objective proof of the underlying facts and the dismissal is based solely on the results of an internal investigation, and (ii) whether a separate measure of removal from duties can no longer be challenged due to the lapse of the exclusion period under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found it difficult to conclude that the sexual harassment, which formed the basis for the disciplinary action, had been proven. The panel noted that the materials submitted by the employer consisted only of documents setting out the results of an internal investigation conducted pursuant to in-house procedures; that there were no specific witness statements or objective materials proving that the alleged witness actually visited the scene at the time of the incident; and that even the complainants’ written statements had not been submitted, making it difficult to verify whether the contents of the investigation report were consistent with their actual statements.
Furthermore, when the specific circumstances and context of the remarks at issue were considered in their entirety, the panel found it difficult to immediately conclude that they constituted a breach of the duty to maintain dignity. By contrast, the application for relief concerning the suspension of the experiential program (removal from duties) was filed more than three months after the date of that measure. Accordingly, the panel held that the application was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period for unfair dismissal relief applications prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, and therefore should be dismissed without any need to examine the legitimacy of the measure.
Ultimately, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair because the employer failed to prove the existence of the grounds for discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even in cases of disciplinary dismissal involving infringement of personality rights, such as sexual harassment or verbal abuse, it is important to clearly recognize that the burden of proof regarding the existence of the grounds for discipline and the presence of just cause lies with the employer. However, if you wish to challenge separate personnel measures such as removal from duties, transfer, or suspension, you must file an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission within three months from the date of the measure; otherwise, the Commission will not conduct a substantive review. Care must therefore be taken not to miss the exclusion period.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
When imposing a disciplinary dismissal in sensitive matters such as sexual harassment, employers should not rely solely on an internal investigation report. They must secure sufficient materials that can objectively verify the credibility of statements—such as written statements from complainants and witnesses, recordings of their statements, and related electronic records. Employers should also comprehensively review the specific context of the remarks or conduct at issue, their frequency or repetitiveness, and the extent of any harm, and then carefully determine whether, under social norms, it has become difficult to continue the employment relationship and whether the intended purpose cannot be achieved through lesser disciplinary measures such as a pay cut or suspension.
Separately, when taking measures such as suspending an experiential program or otherwise removing an employee from duties, employers should clearly document the timing, reasons, and legal or internal grounds for such measures in order to reduce future disputes over the starting date of the exclusion period and the legitimacy of the measures.
This decision of the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, an “internal investigation” alone is insufficient to prove the grounds for discipline, and that management of the exclusion period is crucial for applications for relief against personnel measures such as removal from duties. If you require assistance with Labor Relations Commission proceedings or the design of disciplinary measures, it is advisable to conduct a prior risk review with the advice of a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Decision Details
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… The employer imposed disciplinary action; however, the employee has consistently denied having engaged in any physical contact or inappropriate remarks and disputes the very existence of the grounds for discipline.
3) In response, the employer argues that the existence of the grounds for discipline has been proven based on the results of an investigation by an internal investigative body. However, this is nothing more than a determination made pursuant to in-house procedures, and it is difficult to regard the investigation results themselves as materials that objectively prove the existence of the grounds for discipline.
4) Given the nature of the case, no objective physical evidence exists, and the existence of the grounds for discipline must inevitably be determined based on the statements of the persons involved. Nevertheless, the employer failed to submit materials that could objectively confirm or verify the credibility of those statements.
a) No specific statement from the witness identified as having observed the incident on site, nor any objective material proving that this witness actually visited the scene at the time of the incident, was submitted. The complainants’ written statements were also not submitted, making it difficult to verify whether the contents recorded in the internal investigative body’s report are consistent with the actual statements made.
b) Furthermore, when the specific circumstances and context of the remarks at issue are taken into account, it is difficult to immediately conclude that they constitute a breach of the duty to maintain dignity.
b. Legitimacy of the Removal-from-Duties Measure
The employee filed an application for relief, asserting that the employer unfairly suspended the employee’s operation of the experiential program. However, this application was filed more than three months after the date on which the program operation was put on hold. Accordingly, it was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period (three months from the date of the unfair dismissal, etc.) prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, and there is therefore no need to further examine the legitimacy of the measure.
c. Conclusion
Because the existence of the grounds for discipline against the employee cannot be recognized, the disciplinary action is unfair. The application for relief regarding the removal-from-duties measure was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period.…
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… The employer imposed disciplinary action; however, the employee has consistently denied having engaged in any physical contact or inappropriate remarks and disputes the very existence of the grounds for discipline.
3) In response, the employer argues that the existence of the grounds for discipline has been proven based on the results of an investigation by an internal investigative body. However, this is nothing more than a determination made pursuant to in-house procedures, and it is difficult to regard the investigation results themselves as materials that objectively prove the existence of the grounds for discipline.
4) Given the nature of the case, no objective physical evidence exists, and the existence of the grounds for discipline must inevitably be determined based on the statements of the persons involved. Nevertheless, the employer failed to submit materials that could objectively confirm or verify the credibility of those statements.
a) No specific statement from the witness identified as having observed the incident on site, nor any objective material proving that this witness actually visited the scene at the time of the incident, was submitted. The complainants’ written statements were also not submitted, making it difficult to verify whether the contents recorded in the internal investigative body’s report are consistent with the actual statements made.
b) Furthermore, when the specific circumstances and context of the remarks at issue are taken into account, it is difficult to immediately conclude that they constitute a breach of the duty to maintain dignity.
b. Legitimacy of the Removal-from-Duties Measure
The employee filed an application for relief, asserting that the employer unfairly suspended the employee’s operation of the experiential program. However, this application was filed more than three months after the date on which the program operation was put on hold. Accordingly, it was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period (three months from the date of the unfair dismissal, etc.) prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, and there is therefore no need to further examine the legitimacy of the measure.
c. Conclusion
Because the existence of the grounds for discipline against the employee cannot be recognized, the disciplinary action is unfair. The application for relief regarding the removal-from-duties measure was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period.… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - Case number: Dismissed
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Authenticity of Resignation Letter (Handwritten Resignation for Personal Reasons)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, insufficient proof (sexual harassment disciplinary 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Authenticity of Resignation Letter (Handwritten Resignation for Personal Reasons)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to insufficient proof (sexual harassment disciplinary dismissal) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Insufficient Proof (Sexual Harassment Disciplinary Dismissal).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
