Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Dismissal for Sexual Harassment (Victims in Lower Positions / Non-Regular Workers)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 268)
- Date2026/03/08 04:12
- Read 184
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal for sexual harassment (victims in lower positions / non-regular workers).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9673 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.14 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) The statements of the sexual harassment victims in this case were specific and consistent;
(2) There were no other circumstances to discredit the victims’ statements;
(3) A high degree of probability was recognized as to the employee’s sexual harassment in this case;
and, taken together, the disciplinary grounds 1, 2, and 3 relied upon by the employer all existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
(1) All grounds for discipline were recognized;
(2) All of the victims were in lower positions or were non-regular workers;
…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on an employee for workplace sexual harassment. The employee then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
The key issue in this case is whether, in a disciplinary dismissal for workplace sexual harassment, (i) grounds for discipline exist, (ii) the level of discipline is not excessively severe, and (iii) the disciplinary procedures were conducted lawfully.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are as follows.
First, whether the grounds for disciplinary action for sexual harassment can be deemed to exist based on the victims’ statements alone.
Second, even if sexual harassment is recognized, whether disciplinary dismissal, the most severe form of discipline, is excessively harsh by social standards—i.e., whether the level of discipline is justified.
Third, whether the disciplinary procedures were lawfully conducted, including whether the employee was afforded sufficient opportunity to make statements and present explanations during the investigation and disciplinary process.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case recognized the existence of all the grounds for discipline, citing the following: the victims’ statements regarding the sexual harassment were specific and consistent; there were no circumstances revealed that would justify discrediting the victims’ statements; and, in light of the surrounding circumstances, there was a high degree of probability that the employee committed the sexual harassment.
The panel further found the level of discipline to be appropriate, noting that all of the victims were in lower positions or were non-regular employees and thus in greater need of protection from the employer; that it was difficult to confirm any remorse or reflection on the part of the employee; and that all of the grounds for discipline were recognized. In light of these factors, the panel held that the disciplinary dismissal could not be regarded as an excessively harsh sanction that clearly lost its validity by social standards.
The panel also recognized the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, reasoning that the employee had sufficiently testified during the investigation process; that the employee had been given an opportunity to appear and explain during the disciplinary process; and that the employee did not file a request for reconsideration of the disciplinary decision. Absent any special additional procedures required by work rules, collective agreements, etc., it was difficult to find a serious defect in the protection of the employee’s right to be heard.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held not to constitute unfair dismissal, as the existence of grounds for discipline, the proportionality of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures were all recognized.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that in sexual harassment cases, the employer may be able to prove grounds for discipline based solely on the victim’s specific and consistent statements, and that disciplinary dismissal may accordingly be found to be justified. In particular, where the victim is in a lower position or is a non-regular worker, the imbalance of power may work unfavorably for the accused employee in the assessment of the level of discipline. It is therefore important, from the initial investigation stage, to faithfully clarify the facts and to respond in a manner that demonstrates remorse and reflection.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s / Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, once a sexual harassment report is received, the investigation process should be systematically documented so as to secure the specificity and consistency of the victim’s statements, while at the same time establishing procedures that afford the accused sufficient opportunity to make statements and present explanations. In determining the level of discipline, the employer should comprehensively consider the victim’s status, form of employment, the circumstances of the incident, and the attitude of the accused, and select a level of discipline that is acceptable by social standards in light of the objectives of protecting corporate order and preventing recurrence.
In this type of case, employers are advised to obtain advice from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&, in order to preemptively assess the risk of unfair dismissal disputes and to design defense or remedy strategies at the Labor Relations Commission stage.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) The statements of the sexual harassment victims in this case were specific and consistent;
(2) There were no other circumstances to discredit the victims’ statements;
(3) A high degree of probability was recognized as to the employee’s sexual harassment in this case;
and, taken together, the disciplinary grounds 1, 2, and 3 relied upon by the employer all existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
(1) All grounds for discipline were recognized;
(2) All of the victims were in lower positions or were non-regular workers;
(3) It was not possible to confirm any remorse or reflection on the part of the employee;
and, taken together, the level of discipline could not be regarded as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
(1) The employee sufficiently testified during the investigation process;
(2) During the disciplinary process, the employee was given an opportunity to appear and explain, such as through a notice of attendance;
(3) The employee did not file a request for reconsideration;
and, taken together, it was difficult to find any unlawfulness in the protection of the employee’s right to be heard.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) The statements of the sexual harassment victims in this case were specific and consistent;
(2) There were no other circumstances to discredit the victims’ statements;
(3) A high degree of probability was recognized as to the employee’s sexual harassment in this case;
and, taken together, the disciplinary grounds 1, 2, and 3 relied upon by the employer all existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
(1) All grounds for discipline were recognized;
(2) All of the victims were in lower positions or were non-regular workers;
(3) It was not possible to confirm any remorse or reflection on the part of the employee;
and, taken together, the level of discipline could not be regarded as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
(1) The employee sufficiently testified during the investigation process;
(2) During the disciplinary process, the employee was given an opportunity to appear and explain, such as through a notice of attendance;
(3) The employee did not file a request for reconsideration;
and, taken together, it was difficult to find any unlawfulness in the protection of the employee’s right to be heard. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to “Failure to Comply with Order to Amend (Dismissal of Application for Remedy)”’
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal for sexual harassment (victims in lower positions / non-regular workers), disciplinary dismissal, workplace sexual 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.
※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Effectiveness of Resignation Letter (Statement on Salary Reduction)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal for sexual harassment (victims in lower positions / non-regular workers) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal for Sexual Harassment (Victims in Lower Positions / Non-Regular Workers).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal for sexual harassment (victims in lower positions / non-regular workers).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9673 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.14 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) The statements of the sexual harassment victims in this case were specific and consistent;
(2) There were no other circumstances to discredit the victims’ statements;
(3) A high degree of probability was recognized as to the employee’s sexual harassment in this case;
and, taken together, the disciplinary grounds 1, 2, and 3 relied upon by the employer all existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
(1) All grounds for discipline were recognized;
(2) All of the victims were in lower positions or were non-regular workers;
…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on an employee for workplace sexual harassment. The employee then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
The key issue in this case is whether, in a disciplinary dismissal for workplace sexual harassment, (i) grounds for discipline exist, (ii) the level of discipline is not excessively severe, and (iii) the disciplinary procedures were conducted lawfully.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are as follows.
First, whether the grounds for disciplinary action for sexual harassment can be deemed to exist based on the victims’ statements alone.
Second, even if sexual harassment is recognized, whether disciplinary dismissal, the most severe form of discipline, is excessively harsh by social standards—i.e., whether the level of discipline is justified.
Third, whether the disciplinary procedures were lawfully conducted, including whether the employee was afforded sufficient opportunity to make statements and present explanations during the investigation and disciplinary process.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case recognized the existence of all the grounds for discipline, citing the following: the victims’ statements regarding the sexual harassment were specific and consistent; there were no circumstances revealed that would justify discrediting the victims’ statements; and, in light of the surrounding circumstances, there was a high degree of probability that the employee committed the sexual harassment.
The panel further found the level of discipline to be appropriate, noting that all of the victims were in lower positions or were non-regular employees and thus in greater need of protection from the employer; that it was difficult to confirm any remorse or reflection on the part of the employee; and that all of the grounds for discipline were recognized. In light of these factors, the panel held that the disciplinary dismissal could not be regarded as an excessively harsh sanction that clearly lost its validity by social standards.
The panel also recognized the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, reasoning that the employee had sufficiently testified during the investigation process; that the employee had been given an opportunity to appear and explain during the disciplinary process; and that the employee did not file a request for reconsideration of the disciplinary decision. Absent any special additional procedures required by work rules, collective agreements, etc., it was difficult to find a serious defect in the protection of the employee’s right to be heard.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held not to constitute unfair dismissal, as the existence of grounds for discipline, the proportionality of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures were all recognized.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that in sexual harassment cases, the employer may be able to prove grounds for discipline based solely on the victim’s specific and consistent statements, and that disciplinary dismissal may accordingly be found to be justified. In particular, where the victim is in a lower position or is a non-regular worker, the imbalance of power may work unfavorably for the accused employee in the assessment of the level of discipline. It is therefore important, from the initial investigation stage, to faithfully clarify the facts and to respond in a manner that demonstrates remorse and reflection.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s / Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, once a sexual harassment report is received, the investigation process should be systematically documented so as to secure the specificity and consistency of the victim’s statements, while at the same time establishing procedures that afford the accused sufficient opportunity to make statements and present explanations. In determining the level of discipline, the employer should comprehensively consider the victim’s status, form of employment, the circumstances of the incident, and the attitude of the accused, and select a level of discipline that is acceptable by social standards in light of the objectives of protecting corporate order and preventing recurrence.
In this type of case, employers are advised to obtain advice from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&, in order to preemptively assess the risk of unfair dismissal disputes and to design defense or remedy strategies at the Labor Relations Commission stage.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) The statements of the sexual harassment victims in this case were specific and consistent;
(2) There were no other circumstances to discredit the victims’ statements;
(3) A high degree of probability was recognized as to the employee’s sexual harassment in this case;
and, taken together, the disciplinary grounds 1, 2, and 3 relied upon by the employer all existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
(1) All grounds for discipline were recognized;
(2) All of the victims were in lower positions or were non-regular workers;
(3) It was not possible to confirm any remorse or reflection on the part of the employee;
and, taken together, the level of discipline could not be regarded as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
(1) The employee sufficiently testified during the investigation process;
(2) During the disciplinary process, the employee was given an opportunity to appear and explain, such as through a notice of attendance;
(3) The employee did not file a request for reconsideration;
and, taken together, it was difficult to find any unlawfulness in the protection of the employee’s right to be heard.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
(1) The statements of the sexual harassment victims in this case were specific and consistent;
(2) There were no other circumstances to discredit the victims’ statements;
(3) A high degree of probability was recognized as to the employee’s sexual harassment in this case;
and, taken together, the disciplinary grounds 1, 2, and 3 relied upon by the employer all existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
(1) All grounds for discipline were recognized;
(2) All of the victims were in lower positions or were non-regular workers;
(3) It was not possible to confirm any remorse or reflection on the part of the employee;
and, taken together, the level of discipline could not be regarded as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
(1) The employee sufficiently testified during the investigation process;
(2) During the disciplinary process, the employee was given an opportunity to appear and explain, such as through a notice of attendance;
(3) The employee did not file a request for reconsideration;
and, taken together, it was difficult to find any unlawfulness in the protection of the employee’s right to be heard. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to “Failure to Comply with Order to Amend (Dismissal of Application for Remedy)”’
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal for sexual harassment (victims in lower positions / non-regular workers), disciplinary dismissal, workplace sexual 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.
※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Effectiveness of Resignation Letter (Statement on Salary Reduction)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal for sexual harassment (victims in lower positions / non-regular workers) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal for Sexual Harassment (Victims in Lower Positions / Non-Regular Workers).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
