Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Workplace Bullying (Abusive Language in Group Chat)” (Unfair Dismissal 476)
- Date2026/05/24 04:04
- Read 80
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “workplace bullying (abusive language in a group chat).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae95 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.20 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline – On July 26, 2019 and December 6, 2019, the applicant stated in a group chat shared with employees, “I will have you kicked out,” “I will identify and punish you,” etc.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns whether statements made by the applicant, a superior, in a group KakaoTalk chat room constituted workplace bullying, and whether a reprimand imposed on that basis was justified. The applicant filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that the disciplinary action was unjust. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application.
Through this decision, Labor Law Firm Law& seeks to organize the structure of how the Labor Relations Commission assesses the lawfulness of dismissal and disciplinary measures in workplace bullying cases, and to explain the criteria applied in such disciplinary cases.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“When a superior uses expressions such as ‘I will have you kicked out’ and ‘I will identify and punish you’ in a group chat, does this constitute workplace bullying that can serve as grounds for discipline, and is a reprimand imposed on that basis justified in terms of both the level of discipline and the disciplinary procedure?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel, having reviewed the content of the group chat submitted by the employer, the fact that the complainant still retains the chat records, and the threatening nature and emotional intensity of the statements at the time, held as follows.
The applicant’s statements could reasonably be perceived by the complainant as threatening, and it can be inferred that the complainant’s working environment actually deteriorated and became uncomfortable as a result. As a superior, the applicant’s failure to control his/her emotions and use of inappropriate expressions such as “identify and punish” constituted workplace bullying that placed psychological pressure on subordinates. Workplace bullying is expressly stipulated as grounds for discipline in the company’s rules of employment.
Furthermore, the applicant was the person with ultimate responsibility and administrator of the group chat, in a position where he/she should have encouraged employees and monitored their working environment, but instead worsened that environment. The employer, for its part, bears statutory and regulatory obligations to take measures in response to workplace bullying. In addition, there were no procedural defects: the applicant was notified to appear before the disciplinary committee and was given an opportunity to explain his/her position.
In light of all these circumstances, the Commission held that the disciplinary action in this case did not exceed or abuse the employer’s discretion with respect to the grounds, level, or procedure of discipline for workplace bullying, and therefore was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees—particularly those in managerial, supervisory, or team leader positions—must be aware that statements made in online spaces such as group KakaoTalk chats can constitute workplace bullying just as much as statements made offline. Expressions that may be perceived as threatening, such as “punish” or “identify,” can constitute grounds for discipline even if no actual sanctions follow, where the other party perceives them as worsening the working environment. It is therefore essential to exercise particular restraint in one’s language, even in emotionally charged situations.
Employees who feel they have been subjected to workplace bullying should systematically organize evidence that can objectively demonstrate the sense of threat and deterioration of their working environment—such as the content of conversations at the time, captured messages, and the period for which records have been retained. Such materials can serve as important evidence in subsequent Labor Relations Commission proceedings.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to specify workplace bullying as grounds for discipline in the rules of employment, and to repeatedly inform employees through training that abusive or threatening expressions used in non-face-to-face spaces such as group chats and messengers also fall within the scope of bullying. Where, as in this case, the perpetrator of bullying is a manager who is supposed to protect the working environment, the need for discipline may be assessed more severely. It is therefore advisable to strengthen management-level training and preventive systems separately.
In addition, when a report of workplace bullying is received, it is important to promptly investigate the facts and faithfully observe the basic disciplinary procedures, including notice of the convening of a disciplinary committee, and providing opportunities to attend and make explanations. By doing so, the employer can secure not only the substantive fairness but also the procedural fairness of the disciplinary action, thereby enhancing its defensive position in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
On July 26, 2019 and December 6, 2019, the applicant stated in a group chat shared with employees, “I will have you kicked out,” and “I will identify and punish you.” These statements could be perceived by the complainant as threatening expressions, and the fact that the complainant still retains the group chat records suggests that the complainant’s working environment was worsened and made uncomfortable at the time due to the applicant’s statements. As a superior, the applicant’s intense emotional expressions and inappropriate remarks can be recognized as workplace bullying against subordinates. Acts of workplace bullying fall under the grounds for discipline prescribed in Article 26 of the rules of employment.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The applicant was the person with ultimate responsibility for the group chat and, as a manager, held a position in which he/she should have encouraged employees and monitored their working environment. Nevertheless, it is recognized that the applicant’s intense emotional expressions and inappropriate remarks worsened the working environment of the complainant and other employees. Accordingly, the reprimand imposed on the applicant by the employer, who has a duty to take measures against workplace bullying, cannot be regarded as an excess or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
The applicant was notified to appear before the disciplinary committee and did in fact appear and present explanations. Therefore, there were no procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
On July 26, 2019 and December 6, 2019, the applicant stated in a group chat shared with employees, “I will have you kicked out,” and “I will identify and punish you.” These statements could be perceived by the complainant as threatening expressions, and the fact that the complainant still retains the group chat records suggests that the complainant’s working environment was worsened and made uncomfortable at the time due to the applicant’s statements. As a superior, the applicant’s intense emotional expressions and inappropriate remarks can be recognized as workplace bullying against subordinates. Acts of workplace bullying fall under the grounds for discipline prescribed in Article 26 of the rules of employment.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The applicant was the person with ultimate responsibility for the group chat and, as a manager, held a position in which he/she should have encouraged employees and monitored their working environment. Nevertheless, it is recognized that the applicant’s intense emotional expressions and inappropriate remarks worsened the working environment of the complainant and other employees. Accordingly, the reprimand imposed on the applicant by the employer, who has a duty to take measures against workplace bullying, cannot be regarded as an excess or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
The applicant was notified to appear before the disciplinary committee and did in fact appear and present explanations. Therefore, there were no procedural defects. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal for Non-Appearance at Hearing’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Dismissed
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, workplace bullying (abusive language in group chat), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Curing Defects in Disciplinary Procedures (Letter of Resignation · Double Discipline)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to workplace bullying (abusive language in group chat) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Workplace Bullying (Abusive Language in Group Chat).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “workplace bullying (abusive language in a group chat).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae95 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.20 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline – On July 26, 2019 and December 6, 2019, the applicant stated in a group chat shared with employees, “I will have you kicked out,” “I will identify and punish you,” etc.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns whether statements made by the applicant, a superior, in a group KakaoTalk chat room constituted workplace bullying, and whether a reprimand imposed on that basis was justified. The applicant filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that the disciplinary action was unjust. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application.
Through this decision, Labor Law Firm Law& seeks to organize the structure of how the Labor Relations Commission assesses the lawfulness of dismissal and disciplinary measures in workplace bullying cases, and to explain the criteria applied in such disciplinary cases.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“When a superior uses expressions such as ‘I will have you kicked out’ and ‘I will identify and punish you’ in a group chat, does this constitute workplace bullying that can serve as grounds for discipline, and is a reprimand imposed on that basis justified in terms of both the level of discipline and the disciplinary procedure?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel, having reviewed the content of the group chat submitted by the employer, the fact that the complainant still retains the chat records, and the threatening nature and emotional intensity of the statements at the time, held as follows.
The applicant’s statements could reasonably be perceived by the complainant as threatening, and it can be inferred that the complainant’s working environment actually deteriorated and became uncomfortable as a result. As a superior, the applicant’s failure to control his/her emotions and use of inappropriate expressions such as “identify and punish” constituted workplace bullying that placed psychological pressure on subordinates. Workplace bullying is expressly stipulated as grounds for discipline in the company’s rules of employment.
Furthermore, the applicant was the person with ultimate responsibility and administrator of the group chat, in a position where he/she should have encouraged employees and monitored their working environment, but instead worsened that environment. The employer, for its part, bears statutory and regulatory obligations to take measures in response to workplace bullying. In addition, there were no procedural defects: the applicant was notified to appear before the disciplinary committee and was given an opportunity to explain his/her position.
In light of all these circumstances, the Commission held that the disciplinary action in this case did not exceed or abuse the employer’s discretion with respect to the grounds, level, or procedure of discipline for workplace bullying, and therefore was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees—particularly those in managerial, supervisory, or team leader positions—must be aware that statements made in online spaces such as group KakaoTalk chats can constitute workplace bullying just as much as statements made offline. Expressions that may be perceived as threatening, such as “punish” or “identify,” can constitute grounds for discipline even if no actual sanctions follow, where the other party perceives them as worsening the working environment. It is therefore essential to exercise particular restraint in one’s language, even in emotionally charged situations.
Employees who feel they have been subjected to workplace bullying should systematically organize evidence that can objectively demonstrate the sense of threat and deterioration of their working environment—such as the content of conversations at the time, captured messages, and the period for which records have been retained. Such materials can serve as important evidence in subsequent Labor Relations Commission proceedings.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to specify workplace bullying as grounds for discipline in the rules of employment, and to repeatedly inform employees through training that abusive or threatening expressions used in non-face-to-face spaces such as group chats and messengers also fall within the scope of bullying. Where, as in this case, the perpetrator of bullying is a manager who is supposed to protect the working environment, the need for discipline may be assessed more severely. It is therefore advisable to strengthen management-level training and preventive systems separately.
In addition, when a report of workplace bullying is received, it is important to promptly investigate the facts and faithfully observe the basic disciplinary procedures, including notice of the convening of a disciplinary committee, and providing opportunities to attend and make explanations. By doing so, the employer can secure not only the substantive fairness but also the procedural fairness of the disciplinary action, thereby enhancing its defensive position in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
On July 26, 2019 and December 6, 2019, the applicant stated in a group chat shared with employees, “I will have you kicked out,” and “I will identify and punish you.” These statements could be perceived by the complainant as threatening expressions, and the fact that the complainant still retains the group chat records suggests that the complainant’s working environment was worsened and made uncomfortable at the time due to the applicant’s statements. As a superior, the applicant’s intense emotional expressions and inappropriate remarks can be recognized as workplace bullying against subordinates. Acts of workplace bullying fall under the grounds for discipline prescribed in Article 26 of the rules of employment.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The applicant was the person with ultimate responsibility for the group chat and, as a manager, held a position in which he/she should have encouraged employees and monitored their working environment. Nevertheless, it is recognized that the applicant’s intense emotional expressions and inappropriate remarks worsened the working environment of the complainant and other employees. Accordingly, the reprimand imposed on the applicant by the employer, who has a duty to take measures against workplace bullying, cannot be regarded as an excess or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
The applicant was notified to appear before the disciplinary committee and did in fact appear and present explanations. Therefore, there were no procedural defects.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
On July 26, 2019 and December 6, 2019, the applicant stated in a group chat shared with employees, “I will have you kicked out,” and “I will identify and punish you.” These statements could be perceived by the complainant as threatening expressions, and the fact that the complainant still retains the group chat records suggests that the complainant’s working environment was worsened and made uncomfortable at the time due to the applicant’s statements. As a superior, the applicant’s intense emotional expressions and inappropriate remarks can be recognized as workplace bullying against subordinates. Acts of workplace bullying fall under the grounds for discipline prescribed in Article 26 of the rules of employment.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The applicant was the person with ultimate responsibility for the group chat and, as a manager, held a position in which he/she should have encouraged employees and monitored their working environment. Nevertheless, it is recognized that the applicant’s intense emotional expressions and inappropriate remarks worsened the working environment of the complainant and other employees. Accordingly, the reprimand imposed on the applicant by the employer, who has a duty to take measures against workplace bullying, cannot be regarded as an excess or abuse of the employer’s discretionary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
The applicant was notified to appear before the disciplinary committee and did in fact appear and present explanations. Therefore, there were no procedural defects. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal for Non-Appearance at Hearing’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Dismissed
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, workplace bullying (abusive language in group chat), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Curing Defects in Disciplinary Procedures (Letter of Resignation · Double Discipline)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to workplace bullying (abusive language in group chat) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Workplace Bullying (Abusive Language in Group Chat).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
