Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Discipline for Workplace Bullying)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 419)
- Date2026/05/01 04:04
- Read 137
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (discipline for workplace bullying).”
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent where, on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (discipline for workplace bullying),” the employee ultimately prevailed (full acceptance).
Adjudicating body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae37 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.04.07 · Case outcome: Full acceptance
Summary of key issues:
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
Even if the spatial rearrangement was carried out pursuant to the shelter manual, moving the computer to a living room where there was no internet connection lacked justification, and placing a smaller desk in a corner was deemed to have worsened the working environment beyond the proper scope of work-related measures.
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the director of a shelter was disciplined for workplace bullying, including disadvantageous rearrangement of computers and desks for childcare workers and refusal to share email passwords. The director then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline), challenging the legitimacy of the demotion. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the grounds for discipline themselves, but examined the appropriateness of the demotion, focusing on whether the level of discipline was excessive and whether the personnel regulations had been violated.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where conduct amounting to workplace bullying is acknowledged, whether imposing a severe disciplinary measure of a two-rank demotion for relatively minor misconduct constitutes an unfair exercise of disciplinary authority that exceeds the employer’s discretion.”
The panel in this case found that, even if the spatial rearrangement was carried out pursuant to the shelter manual, moving the computer to a living room without internet access and placing a smaller desk in a corner worsened the working environment beyond the proper scope of work-related measures. It also found that refusing to share the email password with childcare workers, thereby excluding them from work-related information and decision-making processes, constituted workplace bullying. Nevertheless, in light of the degree of the misconduct, the panel viewed the demotion as an excessive sanction, and further held that lowering the employee by two ranks exceeded the scope of demotion permitted under the personnel regulations and thus violated those regulations. In addition, given that, at the re-hearing stage, the employee requested a written review and the procedure was conducted in writing accordingly, it was difficult to find any procedural defect.
The Commission therefore held that, although the grounds for discipline were established, the level of discipline had clearly lost its reasonableness by social standards and was thus unfair.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
First, the Commission acknowledged that the rearrangement of desks and the measure excluding employees from email access constituted workplace bullying. It found that these measures worsened the employees’ working environment beyond the scope of business necessity and resulted in their exclusion from important information and decision-making.
Second, the Commission held that, although the grounds for discipline were established, the misconduct was relatively minor in that the childcare workers’ work performance was not rendered impossible, even if their working environment had somewhat deteriorated due to the desk rearrangement and email access exclusion. Imposing a severe disciplinary measure of demotion in such circumstances was deemed an abuse of discretion, in light of Supreme Court precedents requiring a balance between the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary measure imposed.
Third, under the personnel regulations, “demotion” is defined as appointment to the “immediately lower rank” than the current rank. Appointing the employee to a position more than two ranks lower violated the employer’s own regulations, and the Commission thus found it difficult to recognize the appropriateness of the level of discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, particular attention should be paid to whether one’s conduct may be evaluated as workplace bullying, especially where it involves deterioration of the working environment or systematic exclusion from information and decision-making. At the same time, even if some grounds for discipline are acknowledged, if the disciplinary measure (such as dismissal or demotion) is excessive relative to the degree of misconduct, the employee should remember that they may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing the inappropriateness of the level of discipline and any violations of personnel regulations.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, personnel or work-related measures that may constitute workplace bullying should be avoided. Where spatial rearrangement or restrictions on access to information are necessary, objective business necessity and reasonableness should be documented and demonstrable. In determining the level of discipline, employers should, as required by Supreme Court precedents, comprehensively consider the nature and content of the misconduct, the extent of harm, and the characteristics of the job, so that the level of discipline does not appear clearly excessive by social standards. Employers must also strictly comply with the definitions and scope of each disciplinary measure (such as demotion and pay reduction) set out in their personnel regulations.
In unfair dismissal and disciplinary cases of this type, it is advisable to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, in order to systematically review not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the appropriateness of the level of discipline and compliance with personnel regulations.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Justifiability of the Grounds for Discipline
Even if the spatial rearrangement was carried out pursuant to the shelter manual, moving the computer to a living room where there was no internet connection lacked justification, and placing a smaller desk in a corner was deemed to have worsened the working environment beyond the proper scope of work-related measures. In addition, refusing to share the email password with employees other than the director and the staff member in charge of sending and receiving documents, on the grounds of personal data protection, exceeded the proper scope of work-related measures and could result in those employees being excluded from or ignored in relation to important work-related information or decision-making processes. This constitutes workplace bullying, and thus the grounds for discipline are established.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Even if the grounds for discipline are established, the childcare workers’ working environment, although somewhat worsened after the desk rearrangement and exclusion from email access, was not so impaired as to make it impossible for them to perform their duties. The misconduct was relatively minor, and yet a severe disciplinary measure of demotion was imposed. The level of discipline is therefore considered excessive. Furthermore, under the personnel regulations, “demotion” is defined as “appointment to the rank immediately below the current rank,” and appointing the employee as a childcare worker more than two ranks lower violated those regulations.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There is no explicit provision prohibiting the person who investigated the grounds for discipline from participating in the deliberations of the Personnel Committee on the disciplinary decision. In the re-hearing procedure, the employee requested that the case be reviewed in writing, and the Disciplinary Committee rendered its decision based solely on written submissions without issuing a notice to appear. This cannot be regarded as unlawful, and thus there appears to be no procedural defect.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Justifiability of the Grounds for Discipline
Even if the spatial rearrangement was carried out pursuant to the shelter manual, moving the computer to a living room where there was no internet connection lacked justification, and placing a smaller desk in a corner was deemed to have worsened the working environment beyond the proper scope of work-related measures. In addition, refusing to share the email password with employees other than the director and the staff member in charge of sending and receiving documents, on the grounds of personal data protection, exceeded the proper scope of work-related measures and could result in those employees being excluded from or ignored in relation to important work-related information or decision-making processes. This constitutes workplace bullying, and thus the grounds for discipline are established.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Even if the grounds for discipline are established, the childcare workers’ working environment, although somewhat worsened after the desk rearrangement and exclusion from email access, was not so impaired as to make it impossible for them to perform their duties. The misconduct was relatively minor, and yet a severe disciplinary measure of demotion was imposed. The level of discipline is therefore considered excessive. Furthermore, under the personnel regulations, “demotion” is defined as “appointment to the rank immediately below the current rank,” and appointing the employee as a childcare worker more than two ranks lower violated those regulations.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There is no explicit provision prohibiting the person who investigated the grounds for discipline from participating in the deliberations of the Personnel Committee on the disciplinary decision. In the re-hearing procedure, the employee requested that the case be reviewed in writing, and the Disciplinary Committee rendered its decision based solely on written submissions without issuing a notice to appear. This cannot be regarded as unlawful, and thus there appears to be no procedural defect.
/
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Dismissal of application
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (discipline for workplace bullying), workplace bullying, disciplinary dismissal, 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Failure to Prepare Test Production Report)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Discipline for Workplace Bullying)” at the “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Discipline for Workplace Bullying) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent where, on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (discipline for workplace bullying),” the employee ultimately prevailed (full acceptance).
Adjudicating body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae37 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.04.07 · Case outcome: Full acceptance
Summary of key issues:
A. Justifiability of the grounds for discipline
Even if the spatial rearrangement was carried out pursuant to the shelter manual, moving the computer to a living room where there was no internet connection lacked justification, and placing a smaller desk in a corner was deemed to have worsened the working environment beyond the proper scope of work-related measures.
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the director of a shelter was disciplined for workplace bullying, including disadvantageous rearrangement of computers and desks for childcare workers and refusal to share email passwords. The director then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline), challenging the legitimacy of the demotion. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the grounds for discipline themselves, but examined the appropriateness of the demotion, focusing on whether the level of discipline was excessive and whether the personnel regulations had been violated.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where conduct amounting to workplace bullying is acknowledged, whether imposing a severe disciplinary measure of a two-rank demotion for relatively minor misconduct constitutes an unfair exercise of disciplinary authority that exceeds the employer’s discretion.”
The panel in this case found that, even if the spatial rearrangement was carried out pursuant to the shelter manual, moving the computer to a living room without internet access and placing a smaller desk in a corner worsened the working environment beyond the proper scope of work-related measures. It also found that refusing to share the email password with childcare workers, thereby excluding them from work-related information and decision-making processes, constituted workplace bullying. Nevertheless, in light of the degree of the misconduct, the panel viewed the demotion as an excessive sanction, and further held that lowering the employee by two ranks exceeded the scope of demotion permitted under the personnel regulations and thus violated those regulations. In addition, given that, at the re-hearing stage, the employee requested a written review and the procedure was conducted in writing accordingly, it was difficult to find any procedural defect.
The Commission therefore held that, although the grounds for discipline were established, the level of discipline had clearly lost its reasonableness by social standards and was thus unfair.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
First, the Commission acknowledged that the rearrangement of desks and the measure excluding employees from email access constituted workplace bullying. It found that these measures worsened the employees’ working environment beyond the scope of business necessity and resulted in their exclusion from important information and decision-making.
Second, the Commission held that, although the grounds for discipline were established, the misconduct was relatively minor in that the childcare workers’ work performance was not rendered impossible, even if their working environment had somewhat deteriorated due to the desk rearrangement and email access exclusion. Imposing a severe disciplinary measure of demotion in such circumstances was deemed an abuse of discretion, in light of Supreme Court precedents requiring a balance between the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary measure imposed.
Third, under the personnel regulations, “demotion” is defined as appointment to the “immediately lower rank” than the current rank. Appointing the employee to a position more than two ranks lower violated the employer’s own regulations, and the Commission thus found it difficult to recognize the appropriateness of the level of discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, particular attention should be paid to whether one’s conduct may be evaluated as workplace bullying, especially where it involves deterioration of the working environment or systematic exclusion from information and decision-making. At the same time, even if some grounds for discipline are acknowledged, if the disciplinary measure (such as dismissal or demotion) is excessive relative to the degree of misconduct, the employee should remember that they may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing the inappropriateness of the level of discipline and any violations of personnel regulations.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, personnel or work-related measures that may constitute workplace bullying should be avoided. Where spatial rearrangement or restrictions on access to information are necessary, objective business necessity and reasonableness should be documented and demonstrable. In determining the level of discipline, employers should, as required by Supreme Court precedents, comprehensively consider the nature and content of the misconduct, the extent of harm, and the characteristics of the job, so that the level of discipline does not appear clearly excessive by social standards. Employers must also strictly comply with the definitions and scope of each disciplinary measure (such as demotion and pay reduction) set out in their personnel regulations.
In unfair dismissal and disciplinary cases of this type, it is advisable to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, in order to systematically review not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the appropriateness of the level of discipline and compliance with personnel regulations.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Justifiability of the Grounds for Discipline
Even if the spatial rearrangement was carried out pursuant to the shelter manual, moving the computer to a living room where there was no internet connection lacked justification, and placing a smaller desk in a corner was deemed to have worsened the working environment beyond the proper scope of work-related measures. In addition, refusing to share the email password with employees other than the director and the staff member in charge of sending and receiving documents, on the grounds of personal data protection, exceeded the proper scope of work-related measures and could result in those employees being excluded from or ignored in relation to important work-related information or decision-making processes. This constitutes workplace bullying, and thus the grounds for discipline are established.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Even if the grounds for discipline are established, the childcare workers’ working environment, although somewhat worsened after the desk rearrangement and exclusion from email access, was not so impaired as to make it impossible for them to perform their duties. The misconduct was relatively minor, and yet a severe disciplinary measure of demotion was imposed. The level of discipline is therefore considered excessive. Furthermore, under the personnel regulations, “demotion” is defined as “appointment to the rank immediately below the current rank,” and appointing the employee as a childcare worker more than two ranks lower violated those regulations.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There is no explicit provision prohibiting the person who investigated the grounds for discipline from participating in the deliberations of the Personnel Committee on the disciplinary decision. In the re-hearing procedure, the employee requested that the case be reviewed in writing, and the Disciplinary Committee rendered its decision based solely on written submissions without issuing a notice to appear. This cannot be regarded as unlawful, and thus there appears to be no procedural defect.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Justifiability of the Grounds for Discipline
Even if the spatial rearrangement was carried out pursuant to the shelter manual, moving the computer to a living room where there was no internet connection lacked justification, and placing a smaller desk in a corner was deemed to have worsened the working environment beyond the proper scope of work-related measures. In addition, refusing to share the email password with employees other than the director and the staff member in charge of sending and receiving documents, on the grounds of personal data protection, exceeded the proper scope of work-related measures and could result in those employees being excluded from or ignored in relation to important work-related information or decision-making processes. This constitutes workplace bullying, and thus the grounds for discipline are established.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Even if the grounds for discipline are established, the childcare workers’ working environment, although somewhat worsened after the desk rearrangement and exclusion from email access, was not so impaired as to make it impossible for them to perform their duties. The misconduct was relatively minor, and yet a severe disciplinary measure of demotion was imposed. The level of discipline is therefore considered excessive. Furthermore, under the personnel regulations, “demotion” is defined as “appointment to the rank immediately below the current rank,” and appointing the employee as a childcare worker more than two ranks lower violated those regulations.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There is no explicit provision prohibiting the person who investigated the grounds for discipline from participating in the deliberations of the Personnel Committee on the disciplinary decision. In the re-hearing procedure, the employee requested that the case be reviewed in writing, and the Disciplinary Committee rendered its decision based solely on written submissions without issuing a notice to appear. This cannot be regarded as unlawful, and thus there appears to be no procedural defect.
/
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Dismissal of application
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (discipline for workplace bullying), workplace bullying, disciplinary dismissal, 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Failure to Prepare Test Production Report)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Discipline for Workplace Bullying)” at the “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Discipline for Workplace Bullying) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
