Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Mischaracterization as Workplace Sexual Harassment and Bullying)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 324)
- Date2026/03/28 04:09
- Read 183
This case on unfair dismissal concerns a situation where the employer imposed disciplinary measures on a worker for workplace sexual harassment and bullying, relying on a decision by the Jeonju City Human Rights Committee. The worker applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal. The Commission re-examined the nature and context of the statements made on April 1 and April 7, 2025, which had been at issue before the Human Rights Committee, as well as the parties’ relative positions and the connection to work, in order to determine whether grounds for discipline existed.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer imposed disciplinary measures on the worker for workplace sexual harassment and bullying, based on the findings of the Jeonju City Human Rights Committee. The worker then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking relief from unfair dismissal. The Commission reconsidered the nature and context of the statements made on April 1 and April 7, 2025, which the Human Rights Committee had found problematic, along with the parties’ relative positions and the work-relatedness of those statements, to determine whether the alleged grounds for discipline could be recognized.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are whether the two statements that the Jeonju City Human Rights Committee found problematic can be regarded as constituting workplace sexual harassment and bullying, and whether that finding alone is sufficient to constitute grounds for severe disciplinary action (such as dismissal).
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employer had imposed the disciplinary measures at issue on the ground that the worker’s conduct and statements on April 1 and April 7, 2025, as recognized in the decision of the Jeonju City Human Rights Committee, constituted workplace sexual harassment and bullying.
With respect to the worker’s April 1 statement, the panel noted that it was difficult to view the worker as having exploited a superior position solely because the worker was a “principal member”; that the statement was made in a private conversation with a colleague outside the building before practice began, making it impossible to definitively conclude that it was work-related; and that the expression itself was difficult to regard as conduct containing a sexual meaning.
Regarding the April 7 statement, the panel found that it was difficult to recognize a clear superiority in position or relationship between the worker and the complainant; that it could not be objectively and clearly confirmed whether the threatening expression at issue had actually been used; and that the mere fact that the worker attempted to convey or resolve discomfort through another colleague could not readily be regarded as conduct exceeding the proper scope of work-related behavior.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair because the grounds for discipline themselves could not be recognized.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is safest to refrain as much as possible from statements or conduct that could be mischaracterized as workplace sexual harassment or bullying, and to remain constantly aware of the place, the relationship with the other party, and the content of the conversation, even in private discussions. However, if disciplinary action is actually imposed, workers should bear in mind that they may contest, in light of objective evidence and the specific facts, whether the alleged sexual harassment or bullying asserted by the employer truly satisfies the statutory requirements (use of superior position, work-relatedness, sexual nature, repetitiveness or threatening character, etc.).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where an external body such as the Jeonju City Human Rights Committee has rendered a decision, the employer should not immediately treat that decision as grounds for discipline. Rather, the employer must independently re-examine whether the legal requirements for workplace sexual harassment and bullying are met (superiority in position or relationship, work-relatedness, whether the conduct is sexual in nature, and the degree of threat or insult). In particular, where a single remark, a private conversation, or a conflict in a relationship where superiority in position is not clearly established is directly linked to severe disciplinary action, such as dismissal, there is a high likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will find that no grounds for discipline exist and will rule the dismissal unfair. Therefore, during the fact-finding process, employers should carefully verify the specific content of the statements, their context, and the consistency of witness testimony.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employer imposed the disciplinary measures at issue on the ground that the worker’s conduct and statements on April 1 and April 7, 2025, as recognized in the decision of the Jeonju City Human Rights Committee, constituted workplace sexual harassment and bullying. However, with respect to the April 1, 2025 statement, it is difficult to view the worker as having used his or her workplace position in relation to the complainant solely because the worker was a principal member; the statement was made in a private conversation with a colleague outside the building before practice began, so it cannot be definitively concluded that it was work-related; and the expression itself is difficult to regard as conduct containing a sexual meaning. With respect to the April 7, 2025 statement, it is also difficult to recognize superiority in position or relationship between the worker and the complainant; it cannot be objectively and clearly confirmed whether the threatening expression at issue was actually used; and the mere fact that the worker conveyed or attempted to resolve discomfort through another colleague is difficult to regard as conduct exceeding the proper scope of work-related behavior. Therefore, the disciplinary measures in this case are unfair because the grounds for discipline cannot be recognized, and there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the legality of the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The employer imposed the disciplinary measures at issue on the ground that the worker’s conduct and statements on April 1 and April 7, 2025, as recognized in the decision of the Jeonju City Human Rights Committee, constituted workplace sexual harassment and bullying. However, with respect to the April 1, 2025 statement, it is difficult to view the worker as having used his or her workplace position in relation to the complainant solely because the worker was a principal member; the statement was made in a private conversation with a colleague outside the building before practice began, so it cannot be definitively concluded that it was work-related; and the expression itself is difficult to regard as conduct containing a sexual meaning. With respect to the April 7, 2025 statement, it is also difficult to recognize superiority in position or relationship between the worker and the complainant; it cannot be objectively and clearly confirmed whether the threatening expression at issue was actually used; and the mere fact that the worker conveyed or attempted to resolve discomfort through another colleague is difficult to regard as conduct exceeding the proper scope of work-related behavior. Therefore, the disciplinary measures in this case are unfair because the grounds for discipline cannot be recognized, and there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the legality of the disciplinary procedures. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Age 75 or Older · Traffic Accident Consent Form)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Case – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (mischaracterization as workplace sexual harassment and bullying), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, 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 Case Law” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Age 75 or Older · Traffic Accident Consent Form)’ Unfair Dismissal Case,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (mischaracterization as workplace sexual harassment and bullying) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Mischaracterization as Workplace Sexual Harassment and Bullying).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer imposed disciplinary measures on the worker for workplace sexual harassment and bullying, based on the findings of the Jeonju City Human Rights Committee. The worker then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking relief from unfair dismissal. The Commission reconsidered the nature and context of the statements made on April 1 and April 7, 2025, which the Human Rights Committee had found problematic, along with the parties’ relative positions and the work-relatedness of those statements, to determine whether the alleged grounds for discipline could be recognized.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are whether the two statements that the Jeonju City Human Rights Committee found problematic can be regarded as constituting workplace sexual harassment and bullying, and whether that finding alone is sufficient to constitute grounds for severe disciplinary action (such as dismissal).
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employer had imposed the disciplinary measures at issue on the ground that the worker’s conduct and statements on April 1 and April 7, 2025, as recognized in the decision of the Jeonju City Human Rights Committee, constituted workplace sexual harassment and bullying.
With respect to the worker’s April 1 statement, the panel noted that it was difficult to view the worker as having exploited a superior position solely because the worker was a “principal member”; that the statement was made in a private conversation with a colleague outside the building before practice began, making it impossible to definitively conclude that it was work-related; and that the expression itself was difficult to regard as conduct containing a sexual meaning.
Regarding the April 7 statement, the panel found that it was difficult to recognize a clear superiority in position or relationship between the worker and the complainant; that it could not be objectively and clearly confirmed whether the threatening expression at issue had actually been used; and that the mere fact that the worker attempted to convey or resolve discomfort through another colleague could not readily be regarded as conduct exceeding the proper scope of work-related behavior.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair because the grounds for discipline themselves could not be recognized.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is safest to refrain as much as possible from statements or conduct that could be mischaracterized as workplace sexual harassment or bullying, and to remain constantly aware of the place, the relationship with the other party, and the content of the conversation, even in private discussions. However, if disciplinary action is actually imposed, workers should bear in mind that they may contest, in light of objective evidence and the specific facts, whether the alleged sexual harassment or bullying asserted by the employer truly satisfies the statutory requirements (use of superior position, work-relatedness, sexual nature, repetitiveness or threatening character, etc.).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where an external body such as the Jeonju City Human Rights Committee has rendered a decision, the employer should not immediately treat that decision as grounds for discipline. Rather, the employer must independently re-examine whether the legal requirements for workplace sexual harassment and bullying are met (superiority in position or relationship, work-relatedness, whether the conduct is sexual in nature, and the degree of threat or insult). In particular, where a single remark, a private conversation, or a conflict in a relationship where superiority in position is not clearly established is directly linked to severe disciplinary action, such as dismissal, there is a high likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will find that no grounds for discipline exist and will rule the dismissal unfair. Therefore, during the fact-finding process, employers should carefully verify the specific content of the statements, their context, and the consistency of witness testimony.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employer imposed the disciplinary measures at issue on the ground that the worker’s conduct and statements on April 1 and April 7, 2025, as recognized in the decision of the Jeonju City Human Rights Committee, constituted workplace sexual harassment and bullying. However, with respect to the April 1, 2025 statement, it is difficult to view the worker as having used his or her workplace position in relation to the complainant solely because the worker was a principal member; the statement was made in a private conversation with a colleague outside the building before practice began, so it cannot be definitively concluded that it was work-related; and the expression itself is difficult to regard as conduct containing a sexual meaning. With respect to the April 7, 2025 statement, it is also difficult to recognize superiority in position or relationship between the worker and the complainant; it cannot be objectively and clearly confirmed whether the threatening expression at issue was actually used; and the mere fact that the worker conveyed or attempted to resolve discomfort through another colleague is difficult to regard as conduct exceeding the proper scope of work-related behavior. Therefore, the disciplinary measures in this case are unfair because the grounds for discipline cannot be recognized, and there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the legality of the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The employer imposed the disciplinary measures at issue on the ground that the worker’s conduct and statements on April 1 and April 7, 2025, as recognized in the decision of the Jeonju City Human Rights Committee, constituted workplace sexual harassment and bullying. However, with respect to the April 1, 2025 statement, it is difficult to view the worker as having used his or her workplace position in relation to the complainant solely because the worker was a principal member; the statement was made in a private conversation with a colleague outside the building before practice began, so it cannot be definitively concluded that it was work-related; and the expression itself is difficult to regard as conduct containing a sexual meaning. With respect to the April 7, 2025 statement, it is also difficult to recognize superiority in position or relationship between the worker and the complainant; it cannot be objectively and clearly confirmed whether the threatening expression at issue was actually used; and the mere fact that the worker conveyed or attempted to resolve discomfort through another colleague is difficult to regard as conduct exceeding the proper scope of work-related behavior. Therefore, the disciplinary measures in this case are unfair because the grounds for discipline cannot be recognized, and there is no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the legality of the disciplinary procedures. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Age 75 or Older · Traffic Accident Consent Form)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Case – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (mischaracterization as workplace sexual harassment and bullying), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, 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 Case Law” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Age 75 or Older · Traffic Accident Consent Form)’ Unfair Dismissal Case,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to non-existence of grounds for disciplinary action (mischaracterization as workplace sexual harassment and bullying) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Mischaracterization as Workplace Sexual Harassment and Bullying).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
