Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Action Against Whistleblowers (Internal Workplace Reports)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 272)
- Date2026/03/10 04:04
- Read 211
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “disciplinary action against whistleblowers (internal workplace reports).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1037 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2026.01.14 · Outcome: All claims upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
There is insufficient basis to conclude that the employees’ conduct did not constitute a public interest report. Accordingly, under Articles 62 (Prohibition of Disadvantageous Measures, etc.) and 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Liability, etc.) of the Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, Articles 14 (Reduction or Exemption of Liability, etc.) and 15 (Prohibition of Disadvantageous Measures, etc.) of the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, and Article 310 of the Criminal Act (Justification for Acts for the Public Interest), it cannot be found that grounds for discipline against the employees exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer imposed severe disciplinary measures, including dismissal, on employees on the ground that they had reported suspected misconduct and corruption within the workplace. The employees then filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employees’ conduct constituted a public interest report, whether it could nevertheless serve as grounds for discipline, and whether the level and procedure of the disciplinary action were lawful.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether “an employee’s internal report of workplace misconduct constitutes a ‘public interest report’ under the Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, and whether disciplinary measures such as dismissal imposed on the basis of such reporting conduct can be recognized as grounds for discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that it was difficult to conclude that the employees’ conduct was merely criticism of the company or dissemination of false information, and that there was substantial room to view it as a public interest report intended to disclose acts harmful to the public interest. In light of the purpose of Articles 62 and 66 of the Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and Articles 14 and 15 of the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, which prohibit disadvantageous measures against whistleblowers, disciplinary action based on the reporting conduct must be restricted. This also accords with the legal principle of justification for acts for the public interest set forth in Article 310 of the Criminal Act.
Accordingly, the Commission held that it was difficult to recognize the employees’ reporting conduct as grounds for discipline and therefore that no grounds for discipline existed at all.
Although there was no particular defect in the disciplinary procedure in this case, the dismissal was found to be unfair because the substantive premise—i.e., the existence of grounds for discipline—was not established.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, when reporting corruption or misconduct within the workplace, it is important to carefully confirm whether the conduct being reported constitutes a violation of law or an act harmful to the public interest, and whether the reporting channel used corresponds to a public interest reporting channel prescribed by law, such as the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, investigative authorities, or audit bodies. In addition, the factual content of the report should be supported by objective materials to the greatest extent possible, and the report should be drafted so as not to contain falsehoods or material exaggerations, in order to facilitate protection under the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers and Article 310 of the Criminal Act.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when an internal misconduct report is raised, the first step should be to examine whether it may constitute a public interest report. Extreme caution is required before taking personnel measures such as discipline, transfer, or disadvantageous performance evaluations on the basis of the reporting conduct itself. Even where discipline appears necessary, the employer should proceed step by step to verify: whether there are objectively existing, separate acts of misconduct unrelated to the reporting conduct; whether such acts fall within the grounds for discipline under the rules of employment; and whether the level of discipline is not markedly excessive by social standards.
In this type of case, both employers and employees should have a clear understanding of the statutory provisions prohibiting disadvantageous measures under the Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, as well as the fact that the burden of proof for grounds for discipline lies with the employer. From the initial response stage, they should seek advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to prevent and manage disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
There is insufficient basis to conclude that the employees’ conduct did not constitute a public interest report. Accordingly, under Articles 62 (Prohibition of Disadvantageous Measures, etc.) and 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Liability, etc.) of the Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, Articles 14 (Reduction or Exemption of Liability, etc.) and 15 (Prohibition of Disadvantageous Measures, etc.) of the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, and Article 310 of the Criminal Act (Justification for Acts for the Public Interest), it cannot be found that grounds for discipline against the employees exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Since grounds for discipline are not recognized, there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
In accordance with the relevant regulations, an Employee Disciplinary Committee was convened, a written explanation of the grounds for discipline was provided, the employees were given an opportunity to explain themselves regarding the alleged disciplinary offenses, and the results were notified in writing. Therefore, no particular defect in the disciplinary procedure was identified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
There is insufficient basis to conclude that the employees’ conduct did not constitute a public interest report. Accordingly, under Articles 62 (Prohibition of Disadvantageous Measures, etc.) and 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Liability, etc.) of the Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, Articles 14 (Reduction or Exemption of Liability, etc.) and 15 (Prohibition of Disadvantageous Measures, etc.) of the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, and Article 310 of the Criminal Act (Justification for Acts for the Public Interest), it cannot be found that grounds for discipline against the employees exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Since grounds for discipline are not recognized, there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
In accordance with the relevant regulations, an Employee Disciplinary Committee was convened, a written explanation of the grounds for discipline was provided, the employees were given an opportunity to explain themselves regarding the alleged disciplinary offenses, and the results were notified in writing. Therefore, no particular defect in the disciplinary procedure was identified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary action against whistleblowers (internal workplace reports), disciplinary dismissal, public interest reporting (internal whistleblowing), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Expiration of Disciplinary Limitation Period (Misconduct During Industrial Action)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary action against whistleblowers (internal workplace reports) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Action Against Whistleblowers (Internal Workplace Reports).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “disciplinary action against whistleblowers (internal workplace reports).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1037 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2026.01.14 · Outcome: All claims upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
There is insufficient basis to conclude that the employees’ conduct did not constitute a public interest report. Accordingly, under Articles 62 (Prohibition of Disadvantageous Measures, etc.) and 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Liability, etc.) of the Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, Articles 14 (Reduction or Exemption of Liability, etc.) and 15 (Prohibition of Disadvantageous Measures, etc.) of the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, and Article 310 of the Criminal Act (Justification for Acts for the Public Interest), it cannot be found that grounds for discipline against the employees exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer imposed severe disciplinary measures, including dismissal, on employees on the ground that they had reported suspected misconduct and corruption within the workplace. The employees then filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employees’ conduct constituted a public interest report, whether it could nevertheless serve as grounds for discipline, and whether the level and procedure of the disciplinary action were lawful.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether “an employee’s internal report of workplace misconduct constitutes a ‘public interest report’ under the Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, and whether disciplinary measures such as dismissal imposed on the basis of such reporting conduct can be recognized as grounds for discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that it was difficult to conclude that the employees’ conduct was merely criticism of the company or dissemination of false information, and that there was substantial room to view it as a public interest report intended to disclose acts harmful to the public interest. In light of the purpose of Articles 62 and 66 of the Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and Articles 14 and 15 of the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, which prohibit disadvantageous measures against whistleblowers, disciplinary action based on the reporting conduct must be restricted. This also accords with the legal principle of justification for acts for the public interest set forth in Article 310 of the Criminal Act.
Accordingly, the Commission held that it was difficult to recognize the employees’ reporting conduct as grounds for discipline and therefore that no grounds for discipline existed at all.
Although there was no particular defect in the disciplinary procedure in this case, the dismissal was found to be unfair because the substantive premise—i.e., the existence of grounds for discipline—was not established.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, when reporting corruption or misconduct within the workplace, it is important to carefully confirm whether the conduct being reported constitutes a violation of law or an act harmful to the public interest, and whether the reporting channel used corresponds to a public interest reporting channel prescribed by law, such as the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, investigative authorities, or audit bodies. In addition, the factual content of the report should be supported by objective materials to the greatest extent possible, and the report should be drafted so as not to contain falsehoods or material exaggerations, in order to facilitate protection under the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers and Article 310 of the Criminal Act.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when an internal misconduct report is raised, the first step should be to examine whether it may constitute a public interest report. Extreme caution is required before taking personnel measures such as discipline, transfer, or disadvantageous performance evaluations on the basis of the reporting conduct itself. Even where discipline appears necessary, the employer should proceed step by step to verify: whether there are objectively existing, separate acts of misconduct unrelated to the reporting conduct; whether such acts fall within the grounds for discipline under the rules of employment; and whether the level of discipline is not markedly excessive by social standards.
In this type of case, both employers and employees should have a clear understanding of the statutory provisions prohibiting disadvantageous measures under the Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, as well as the fact that the burden of proof for grounds for discipline lies with the employer. From the initial response stage, they should seek advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to prevent and manage disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
There is insufficient basis to conclude that the employees’ conduct did not constitute a public interest report. Accordingly, under Articles 62 (Prohibition of Disadvantageous Measures, etc.) and 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Liability, etc.) of the Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, Articles 14 (Reduction or Exemption of Liability, etc.) and 15 (Prohibition of Disadvantageous Measures, etc.) of the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, and Article 310 of the Criminal Act (Justification for Acts for the Public Interest), it cannot be found that grounds for discipline against the employees exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Since grounds for discipline are not recognized, there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
In accordance with the relevant regulations, an Employee Disciplinary Committee was convened, a written explanation of the grounds for discipline was provided, the employees were given an opportunity to explain themselves regarding the alleged disciplinary offenses, and the results were notified in writing. Therefore, no particular defect in the disciplinary procedure was identified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
There is insufficient basis to conclude that the employees’ conduct did not constitute a public interest report. Accordingly, under Articles 62 (Prohibition of Disadvantageous Measures, etc.) and 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Liability, etc.) of the Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, Articles 14 (Reduction or Exemption of Liability, etc.) and 15 (Prohibition of Disadvantageous Measures, etc.) of the Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers, and Article 310 of the Criminal Act (Justification for Acts for the Public Interest), it cannot be found that grounds for discipline against the employees exist.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Since grounds for discipline are not recognized, there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure
In accordance with the relevant regulations, an Employee Disciplinary Committee was convened, a written explanation of the grounds for discipline was provided, the employees were given an opportunity to explain themselves regarding the alleged disciplinary offenses, and the results were notified in writing. Therefore, no particular defect in the disciplinary procedure was identified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary action against whistleblowers (internal workplace reports), disciplinary dismissal, public interest reporting (internal whistleblowing), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Expiration of Disciplinary Limitation Period (Misconduct During Industrial Action)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary action against whistleblowers (internal workplace reports) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Action Against Whistleblowers (Internal Workplace Reports).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
