Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Workplace Harassment (Comments on Colleague’s Appearance)” (Unfair Dismissal 385)
- Date2026/04/19 04:12
- Read 165
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “workplace harassment (comments on a colleague’s appearance).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9596 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
It was found that the employee repeatedly referred to a colleague’s appearance and lifestyle habits in public settings, making remarks that could cause humiliation or a sense of insult. This conduct constitutes workplace harassment prohibited under the company’s rules of employment, and therefore grounds for discipline existed.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
In light of the nature and degree of the employee’s conduct, the employer imposed a reprimand, the mildest form of disciplinary action, and thus the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive by social standards. ...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the issues were whether the employee’s repeated comments about a colleague’s appearance and lifestyle habits constituted workplace harassment, and whether the resulting reprimand was a justified disciplinary measure. After reviewing, through the labor relations commission procedure, whether the employer’s disciplinary action was lawful, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether “the act of repeatedly referring to a colleague’s appearance and lifestyle habits in public settings constitutes workplace harassment under the rules of employment, and whether the reprimand imposed for such conduct is justified in terms of grounds for discipline, level of discipline, and disciplinary procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found, based on the investigation results submitted by the employer, that the employee had repeatedly referred to a colleague’s appearance and lifestyle habits in public settings; that the content and manner of those remarks could cause the colleague humiliation or a sense of insult and therefore constituted workplace harassment prohibited by the rules of employment; that, in light of the nature and degree of the conduct, the employer chose a reprimand, the mildest form of disciplinary action, which cannot be considered unduly harsh by social standards; and that, following the workplace harassment report, the employer complied with the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment and related regulations, including investigating the persons involved and giving the employee an opportunity to explain.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was a legitimate measure within the employer’s discretion in terms of grounds for discipline, level of discipline, and disciplinary procedures, and ruled that it did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that even if they repeatedly comment on a colleague’s appearance, manner of speaking, lifestyle habits, and the like under the perception that it is merely “a joke” or “customary,” such conduct may be assessed as workplace harassment and constitute grounds for discipline if it causes the colleague humiliation or a sense of insult. In particular, where the rules of employment contain provisions prohibiting workplace harassment, even conduct that appears relatively minor may lead to a formal investigation and disciplinary action. It is therefore safest to refrain as much as possible from expressions that may make colleagues uncomfortable, insofar as they are unrelated to work.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly set out provisions on workplace harassment in the rules of employment and, upon receipt of a report, to conduct fact-finding, hear statements from the parties and witnesses, and provide the accused employee with an opportunity to explain, while documenting each step of the process. With respect to the level of discipline, the employer should select a measure that is not excessive by social standards, based on a comprehensive assessment of the nature, degree, and frequency of the conduct and the extent of harm suffered. As in this case, applying the mildest form of discipline first and escalating step by step, if necessary, will help in having the legitimacy of the measure recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles relating to workplace harassment and the case law standards on grounds for discipline, level of discipline, and disciplinary procedures, and to have the capability to systematically organize the facts in line with those standards. It is advisable to prepare a response strategy from the initial investigation stage with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, which has extensive practical experience before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
It was found that the employee repeatedly referred to a colleague’s appearance and lifestyle habits in public settings, making remarks that could cause humiliation or a sense of insult. This conduct constitutes workplace harassment prohibited under the rules of employment, and therefore grounds for discipline existed.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
In light of the nature and degree of the employee’s conduct, the employer imposed a reprimand, the mildest form of disciplinary action, and thus the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive by social standards and is appropriate.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
Following the workplace harassment report, the employer lawfully conducted the disciplinary procedures in accordance with the relevant regulations, including investigating the persons involved and giving the employee an opportunity to explain.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
It was found that the employee repeatedly referred to a colleague’s appearance and lifestyle habits in public settings, making remarks that could cause humiliation or a sense of insult. This conduct constitutes workplace harassment prohibited under the rules of employment, and therefore grounds for discipline existed.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
In light of the nature and degree of the employee’s conduct, the employer imposed a reprimand, the mildest form of disciplinary action, and thus the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive by social standards and is appropriate.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
Following the workplace harassment report, the employer lawfully conducted the disciplinary procedures in accordance with the relevant regulations, including investigating the persons involved and giving the employee an opportunity to explain. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Burden of Proof·Equity (Bus Driver Traffic Accident·Embezzlement Suspicion)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expectation of Conversion (Head Nurse’s Refusal of Conversion to Regular Employment)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, workplace harassment (comments on colleague’s appearance), workplace harassment, violation of company policy·non-compliance with work instructions, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expectation of Conversion (Head Nurse’s Refusal of Conversion to Regular Employment)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to workplace harassment (comments on colleague’s appearance) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Workplace Harassment (Comments on Colleague’s Appearance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “workplace harassment (comments on a colleague’s appearance).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9596 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
It was found that the employee repeatedly referred to a colleague’s appearance and lifestyle habits in public settings, making remarks that could cause humiliation or a sense of insult. This conduct constitutes workplace harassment prohibited under the company’s rules of employment, and therefore grounds for discipline existed.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
In light of the nature and degree of the employee’s conduct, the employer imposed a reprimand, the mildest form of disciplinary action, and thus the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive by social standards. ...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the issues were whether the employee’s repeated comments about a colleague’s appearance and lifestyle habits constituted workplace harassment, and whether the resulting reprimand was a justified disciplinary measure. After reviewing, through the labor relations commission procedure, whether the employer’s disciplinary action was lawful, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether “the act of repeatedly referring to a colleague’s appearance and lifestyle habits in public settings constitutes workplace harassment under the rules of employment, and whether the reprimand imposed for such conduct is justified in terms of grounds for discipline, level of discipline, and disciplinary procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found, based on the investigation results submitted by the employer, that the employee had repeatedly referred to a colleague’s appearance and lifestyle habits in public settings; that the content and manner of those remarks could cause the colleague humiliation or a sense of insult and therefore constituted workplace harassment prohibited by the rules of employment; that, in light of the nature and degree of the conduct, the employer chose a reprimand, the mildest form of disciplinary action, which cannot be considered unduly harsh by social standards; and that, following the workplace harassment report, the employer complied with the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment and related regulations, including investigating the persons involved and giving the employee an opportunity to explain.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was a legitimate measure within the employer’s discretion in terms of grounds for discipline, level of discipline, and disciplinary procedures, and ruled that it did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that even if they repeatedly comment on a colleague’s appearance, manner of speaking, lifestyle habits, and the like under the perception that it is merely “a joke” or “customary,” such conduct may be assessed as workplace harassment and constitute grounds for discipline if it causes the colleague humiliation or a sense of insult. In particular, where the rules of employment contain provisions prohibiting workplace harassment, even conduct that appears relatively minor may lead to a formal investigation and disciplinary action. It is therefore safest to refrain as much as possible from expressions that may make colleagues uncomfortable, insofar as they are unrelated to work.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly set out provisions on workplace harassment in the rules of employment and, upon receipt of a report, to conduct fact-finding, hear statements from the parties and witnesses, and provide the accused employee with an opportunity to explain, while documenting each step of the process. With respect to the level of discipline, the employer should select a measure that is not excessive by social standards, based on a comprehensive assessment of the nature, degree, and frequency of the conduct and the extent of harm suffered. As in this case, applying the mildest form of discipline first and escalating step by step, if necessary, will help in having the legitimacy of the measure recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles relating to workplace harassment and the case law standards on grounds for discipline, level of discipline, and disciplinary procedures, and to have the capability to systematically organize the facts in line with those standards. It is advisable to prepare a response strategy from the initial investigation stage with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, which has extensive practical experience before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
It was found that the employee repeatedly referred to a colleague’s appearance and lifestyle habits in public settings, making remarks that could cause humiliation or a sense of insult. This conduct constitutes workplace harassment prohibited under the rules of employment, and therefore grounds for discipline existed.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
In light of the nature and degree of the employee’s conduct, the employer imposed a reprimand, the mildest form of disciplinary action, and thus the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive by social standards and is appropriate.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
Following the workplace harassment report, the employer lawfully conducted the disciplinary procedures in accordance with the relevant regulations, including investigating the persons involved and giving the employee an opportunity to explain.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
It was found that the employee repeatedly referred to a colleague’s appearance and lifestyle habits in public settings, making remarks that could cause humiliation or a sense of insult. This conduct constitutes workplace harassment prohibited under the rules of employment, and therefore grounds for discipline existed.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
In light of the nature and degree of the employee’s conduct, the employer imposed a reprimand, the mildest form of disciplinary action, and thus the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive by social standards and is appropriate.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
Following the workplace harassment report, the employer lawfully conducted the disciplinary procedures in accordance with the relevant regulations, including investigating the persons involved and giving the employee an opportunity to explain. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Burden of Proof·Equity (Bus Driver Traffic Accident·Embezzlement Suspicion)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expectation of Conversion (Head Nurse’s Refusal of Conversion to Regular Employment)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, workplace harassment (comments on colleague’s appearance), workplace harassment, violation of company policy·non-compliance with work instructions, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expectation of Conversion (Head Nurse’s Refusal of Conversion to Regular Employment)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to workplace harassment (comments on colleague’s appearance) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Workplace Harassment (Comments on Colleague’s Appearance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
