Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Profanity in Conflict with Superior)” (Unfair Dismissal 466)
- Date2026/05/20 04:13
- Read 99
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (profanity in conflict with superior).”
Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae95 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.23 · Case outcome: Fully upheld (employee’s claim)
Summary of key issues:
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Some misconduct acknowledged by the employee, such as the act of using profanity, was recognized as grounds for discipline. However, the other alleged grounds for discipline were not recognized because the employer failed to specify the concrete acts of misconduct and did not submit supporting evidence.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The main misconduct arose from conflict with a superior; there was no objective investigation into the legitimacy of the superior’s work instructions; after submitting a written statement of explanation (shimalseo), similar misconduct was not repeated; and the employee made efforts to improve the relationship with the superior. In light of these circumstances, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal was found to be excessive in relation to the recognized grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee acknowledged certain acts of misconduct, including the use of profanity during a conflict with a superior, but disputed several additional acts of misconduct alleged by the company and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, within the labor commission proceedings, the grounds for discipline and evidence presented by the employer, the legitimacy of the superior’s work instructions, and the employee’s subsequent attitude, and on that basis determined whether the disciplinary dismissal was justified. In doing so, the Commission focused on the criteria for determining unfair dismissal, the proportionality of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. Labor Law Firm Law& represented the employee and conducted the labor commission remedy proceedings.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is “where certain misconduct such as profanity arising in the course of conflict with a superior is acknowledged, whether a disciplinary dismissal that also encompasses other alleged misconduct that the employer has failed to specify and prove satisfies the requirement of proportionality in the level of discipline, and whether the dismissal may still be found unfair even in the absence of any serious defect in the disciplinary procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case took into account that the acts of misconduct voluntarily acknowledged by the employee, including the use of profanity, constituted grounds for discipline; that with respect to the remaining alleged misconduct, the company failed to specify the concrete factual circumstances and did not submit objective materials to support them; and that, under Supreme Court precedent, the level of discipline must be reasonable and proportionate to the grounds for discipline, and where it is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, it constitutes an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power to impose discipline. In particular, considering comprehensively that the main misconduct arose from conflict with a superior, that there was no objective investigation into the legitimacy of the superior’s work instructions, that similar misconduct did not recur after the written statement of explanation was submitted, and that the employee made efforts to improve the relationship with the superior, the Commission held that dismissal was excessively severe and therefore unfair in light of the recognized grounds for discipline.
Although there were some minor deficiencies in the course of conducting the disciplinary procedures in this case, there did not appear to be any serious procedural defect such as a violation of the work rules in the process of resolving to dismiss the employee. Nevertheless, the combination of the employer’s failure to specify and prove the grounds for discipline and the excessive severity of the disciplinary measure led the Commission to find the dismissal unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if some misconduct is acknowledged, it is necessary to carefully examine whether the remaining grounds for discipline alleged by the employer are concretely specified and whether there is objective evidence to support them. Furthermore, even where profanity or harsh language occurs in the context of conflict with a superior, factors such as the motive and circumstances, whether the act was spontaneous, whether there was any recurrence, and efforts to improve the relationship can serve as important mitigating factors in determining the level of discipline. Accordingly, at the labor commission stage, employees should actively explain and substantiate these circumstances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when considering serious disciplinary measures including dismissal, all grounds for discipline should be specified with concrete dates, places, and descriptions of the acts, supported by evidence, and clearly reflected in the disciplinary committee records and the dismissal notice. In addition, employers should comprehensively consider factors such as conflict with a superior, the legitimacy of work instructions, efforts to restore the relationship after the conflict, whether the misconduct was a one-off or spontaneous incident, and the actual impact on corporate order. If an employer proceeds directly to dismissal without examining whether other disciplinary measures such as suspension or pay reduction would suffice, there is a high risk that the labor commission will find an abuse of disciplinary discretion and rule the dismissal unfair.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Some misconduct acknowledged by the employee, such as the act of using profanity, was recognized as grounds for discipline. However, the other alleged grounds for discipline were not recognized because the employer failed to specify the concrete acts of misconduct and did not submit supporting evidence.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering comprehensively that the main misconduct arose from conflict with a superior, that there was no objective investigation into the legitimacy of the superior’s work instructions, and that similar misconduct did not recur after the written statement of explanation was submitted and the employee made efforts to improve the relationship with the superior, the level of discipline was excessive in relation to the recognized grounds for discipline.
c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Although there were some minor deficiencies in the course of conducting the disciplinary procedures, there did not appear to be any procedural defect such as a violation of the work rules in the process of resolving to dismiss the employee.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Some misconduct acknowledged by the employee, such as the act of using profanity, was recognized as grounds for discipline. However, the other alleged grounds for discipline were not recognized because the employer failed to specify the concrete acts of misconduct and did not submit supporting evidence.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering comprehensively that the main misconduct arose from conflict with a superior, that there was no objective investigation into the legitimacy of the superior’s work instructions, and that similar misconduct did not recur after the written statement of explanation was submitted and the employee made efforts to improve the relationship with the superior, the level of discipline was excessive in relation to the recognized grounds for discipline.
c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Although there were some minor deficiencies in the course of conducting the disciplinary procedures, there did not appear to be any procedural defect such as a violation of the work rules in the process of resolving to dismiss the employee.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Right to Terminate Probation (Allegation of Workplace Bullying)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (profanity in conflict with superior), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Right to Terminate Probation (Allegation of Workplace Bullying)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (profanity in conflict with superior) on the “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Profanity in Conflict with Superior) Decisions List” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (profanity in conflict with superior).”
Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae95 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.23 · Case outcome: Fully upheld (employee’s claim)
Summary of key issues:
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Some misconduct acknowledged by the employee, such as the act of using profanity, was recognized as grounds for discipline. However, the other alleged grounds for discipline were not recognized because the employer failed to specify the concrete acts of misconduct and did not submit supporting evidence.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The main misconduct arose from conflict with a superior; there was no objective investigation into the legitimacy of the superior’s work instructions; after submitting a written statement of explanation (shimalseo), similar misconduct was not repeated; and the employee made efforts to improve the relationship with the superior. In light of these circumstances, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal was found to be excessive in relation to the recognized grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee acknowledged certain acts of misconduct, including the use of profanity during a conflict with a superior, but disputed several additional acts of misconduct alleged by the company and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, within the labor commission proceedings, the grounds for discipline and evidence presented by the employer, the legitimacy of the superior’s work instructions, and the employee’s subsequent attitude, and on that basis determined whether the disciplinary dismissal was justified. In doing so, the Commission focused on the criteria for determining unfair dismissal, the proportionality of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. Labor Law Firm Law& represented the employee and conducted the labor commission remedy proceedings.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is “where certain misconduct such as profanity arising in the course of conflict with a superior is acknowledged, whether a disciplinary dismissal that also encompasses other alleged misconduct that the employer has failed to specify and prove satisfies the requirement of proportionality in the level of discipline, and whether the dismissal may still be found unfair even in the absence of any serious defect in the disciplinary procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case took into account that the acts of misconduct voluntarily acknowledged by the employee, including the use of profanity, constituted grounds for discipline; that with respect to the remaining alleged misconduct, the company failed to specify the concrete factual circumstances and did not submit objective materials to support them; and that, under Supreme Court precedent, the level of discipline must be reasonable and proportionate to the grounds for discipline, and where it is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, it constitutes an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power to impose discipline. In particular, considering comprehensively that the main misconduct arose from conflict with a superior, that there was no objective investigation into the legitimacy of the superior’s work instructions, that similar misconduct did not recur after the written statement of explanation was submitted, and that the employee made efforts to improve the relationship with the superior, the Commission held that dismissal was excessively severe and therefore unfair in light of the recognized grounds for discipline.
Although there were some minor deficiencies in the course of conducting the disciplinary procedures in this case, there did not appear to be any serious procedural defect such as a violation of the work rules in the process of resolving to dismiss the employee. Nevertheless, the combination of the employer’s failure to specify and prove the grounds for discipline and the excessive severity of the disciplinary measure led the Commission to find the dismissal unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if some misconduct is acknowledged, it is necessary to carefully examine whether the remaining grounds for discipline alleged by the employer are concretely specified and whether there is objective evidence to support them. Furthermore, even where profanity or harsh language occurs in the context of conflict with a superior, factors such as the motive and circumstances, whether the act was spontaneous, whether there was any recurrence, and efforts to improve the relationship can serve as important mitigating factors in determining the level of discipline. Accordingly, at the labor commission stage, employees should actively explain and substantiate these circumstances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when considering serious disciplinary measures including dismissal, all grounds for discipline should be specified with concrete dates, places, and descriptions of the acts, supported by evidence, and clearly reflected in the disciplinary committee records and the dismissal notice. In addition, employers should comprehensively consider factors such as conflict with a superior, the legitimacy of work instructions, efforts to restore the relationship after the conflict, whether the misconduct was a one-off or spontaneous incident, and the actual impact on corporate order. If an employer proceeds directly to dismissal without examining whether other disciplinary measures such as suspension or pay reduction would suffice, there is a high risk that the labor commission will find an abuse of disciplinary discretion and rule the dismissal unfair.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Some misconduct acknowledged by the employee, such as the act of using profanity, was recognized as grounds for discipline. However, the other alleged grounds for discipline were not recognized because the employer failed to specify the concrete acts of misconduct and did not submit supporting evidence.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering comprehensively that the main misconduct arose from conflict with a superior, that there was no objective investigation into the legitimacy of the superior’s work instructions, and that similar misconduct did not recur after the written statement of explanation was submitted and the employee made efforts to improve the relationship with the superior, the level of discipline was excessive in relation to the recognized grounds for discipline.
c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Although there were some minor deficiencies in the course of conducting the disciplinary procedures, there did not appear to be any procedural defect such as a violation of the work rules in the process of resolving to dismiss the employee.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
Some misconduct acknowledged by the employee, such as the act of using profanity, was recognized as grounds for discipline. However, the other alleged grounds for discipline were not recognized because the employer failed to specify the concrete acts of misconduct and did not submit supporting evidence.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Considering comprehensively that the main misconduct arose from conflict with a superior, that there was no objective investigation into the legitimacy of the superior’s work instructions, and that similar misconduct did not recur after the written statement of explanation was submitted and the employee made efforts to improve the relationship with the superior, the level of discipline was excessive in relation to the recognized grounds for discipline.
c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Although there were some minor deficiencies in the course of conducting the disciplinary procedures, there did not appear to be any procedural defect such as a violation of the work rules in the process of resolving to dismiss the employee.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Right to Terminate Probation (Allegation of Workplace Bullying)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (profanity in conflict with superior), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Right to Terminate Probation (Allegation of Workplace Bullying)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (profanity in conflict with superior) on the “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Profanity in Conflict with Superior) Decisions List” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
