Corporate trends / Performance record
Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment · External Complaints) – Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 478)
- Date2026/05/24 04:12
- Read 83
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · external complaints).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1146 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.19 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee filed complaints with external institutions and lodged criminal accusations (complaints/reports) against the reporting employee, sent messages to the reporter’s superior insulting the reporter, went to the office where the reporter worked and publicly slandered the reporter, and sent messages to the reporter’s then‑spouse predicting adverse personnel measures. These acts were held to violate the duty of sincerity and the duty to maintain dignity under the service regulations, as well as the prohibition of workplace harassment under the workplace harassment guidelines…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was dismissed (disciplinary dismissal) on the grounds that the employee filed complaints with external institutions and pursued criminal complaints/reports against a co‑worker, and, at the same time, sent insulting and slanderous messages and engaged in public slander in the workplace. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy, asserting that the dismissal was unfair. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted its hearing focusing on (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline (disciplinary severity), and (iii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee, targeting a specific reporter, repeatedly files external complaints, sends insulting messages, publicly slanders the reporter, and sends messages to the reporter’s spouse predicting adverse personnel measures, whether the resulting dismissal is justified in terms of grounds for discipline, disciplinary severity, and disciplinary procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that, in light of the facts that the employee filed complaints with external institutions and lodged criminal complaints/reports against the reporter, sent messages containing insulting expressions about the reporter to the reporter’s superior, went to the office where the reporter worked and publicly slandered the reporter, and sent messages to the reporter’s then‑spouse predicting adverse personnel measures, such conduct clearly constituted grounds for discipline as it violated the duty of sincerity and the duty to maintain dignity under the service regulations, as well as the “duty to refrain from workplace harassment” under the workplace harassment prevention guidelines.
Furthermore, based on the disciplinary severity standards under the personnel regulations and the disciplinary principles set out in the workplace harassment guidelines, the Commission found that the employer’s choice of dismissal was not so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority, and that, considering the nature of the misconduct, its repetitive nature, and the extent of the harm, the level of discipline could not be deemed objectively and clearly unfair.
In addition, the Commission noted that, in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the personnel regulations, the employer convened a personnel committee, notified the employee of the convening of the committee and thereby afforded an opportunity to present explanations, and notified the employee in writing of the committee’s resolution. Accordingly, the procedures were found to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s requirement to provide “prior notice and an opportunity to be heard,” and there was no defect in the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
While an employee may file external complaints or pursue criminal complaints/reports in the course of alleging workplace harassment or attempting to resolve conflicts, if the manner of doing so expands into repeated insults and slander against a particular co‑worker, or acts such as predicting adverse personnel measures against the co‑worker’s family members, such conduct may be evaluated as exceeding legitimate whistleblowing and instead constituting a violation of the service regulations and the duty to refrain from workplace harassment. In particular, when assessing the appropriateness of disciplinary severity, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts comprehensively consider the content and nature of the misconduct, its repetitiveness, and its impact on workplace order. Employees should therefore avoid emotional reactions and instead use formal procedures (internal reporting systems, official channels) to raise issues based on facts.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important that workplace harassment guidelines and service regulations explicitly specify concrete types of conduct—such as insults, slander, and threats of private personnel disadvantages—and that corresponding disciplinary severity standards be established in advance. For serious disciplinary measures such as disciplinary dismissal, the employer should be able to demonstrate that the measure was selected in accordance with internal disciplinary severity standards, and should thoroughly document and substantiate the circumstances, frequency, and extent of harm caused by the workplace harassment, as well as its impact on organizational order, through personnel committee minutes, investigation reports, victim statements, and similar materials.
In addition, in disciplinary procedures, the employer must properly constitute the personnel or disciplinary committee as prescribed in the personnel regulations and collective agreements, and must fully ensure prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. It is essential to operate clear rules on exclusion and challenge so that interested parties or persons involved in the case are not included as committee members. This is a key point in securing recognition of procedural fairness before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee filed complaints with external institutions and lodged criminal complaints/reports against the reporter, sent messages insulting the reporter to the reporter’s superior, went to the office where the reporter worked and publicly slandered the reporter, and sent messages to the reporter’s then‑spouse predicting adverse personnel measures. These acts constitute grounds for discipline as they violate the duty of sincerity and the duty to maintain dignity under the service regulations, and the duty to refrain from workplace harassment under the workplace harassment guidelines.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary severity
It is difficult to find that the employer’s decision to dismiss the employee, made in accordance with the disciplinary severity standards in the personnel regulations and the disciplinary principles in the workplace harassment guidelines, was so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to amount to an abuse of the discretionary disciplinary authority, or that the content of the discipline was objectively and clearly unfair.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
As the employer, in accordance with the disciplinary procedures set out in the personnel regulations, notified the employee of the convening of the personnel committee and thereby afforded an opportunity to present explanations, and notified the employee in writing of the result of the personnel committee’s resolution, the Commission found no defect in the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee filed complaints with external institutions and lodged criminal complaints/reports against the reporter, sent messages insulting the reporter to the reporter’s superior, went to the office where the reporter worked and publicly slandered the reporter, and sent messages to the reporter’s then‑spouse predicting adverse personnel measures. These acts constitute grounds for discipline as they violate the duty of sincerity and the duty to maintain dignity under the service regulations, and the duty to refrain from workplace harassment under the workplace harassment guidelines.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary severity
It is difficult to find that the employer’s decision to dismiss the employee, made in accordance with the disciplinary severity standards in the personnel regulations and the disciplinary principles in the workplace harassment guidelines, was so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to amount to an abuse of the discretionary disciplinary authority, or that the content of the discipline was objectively and clearly unfair.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
As the employer, in accordance with the disciplinary procedures set out in the personnel regulations, notified the employee of the convening of the personnel committee and thereby afforded an opportunity to present explanations, and notified the employee in writing of the result of the personnel committee’s resolution, the Commission found no defect in the disciplinary procedures. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Workplace Harassment (Abusive Language in Group Chat)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · external complaints), disciplinary dismissal, workplace harassment, 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, “Employee Status (Construction Daily Worker) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · external complaints) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment · External Complaints).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · external complaints).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1146 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.19 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee filed complaints with external institutions and lodged criminal accusations (complaints/reports) against the reporting employee, sent messages to the reporter’s superior insulting the reporter, went to the office where the reporter worked and publicly slandered the reporter, and sent messages to the reporter’s then‑spouse predicting adverse personnel measures. These acts were held to violate the duty of sincerity and the duty to maintain dignity under the service regulations, as well as the prohibition of workplace harassment under the workplace harassment guidelines…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee was dismissed (disciplinary dismissal) on the grounds that the employee filed complaints with external institutions and pursued criminal complaints/reports against a co‑worker, and, at the same time, sent insulting and slanderous messages and engaged in public slander in the workplace. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy, asserting that the dismissal was unfair. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted its hearing focusing on (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline (disciplinary severity), and (iii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee, targeting a specific reporter, repeatedly files external complaints, sends insulting messages, publicly slanders the reporter, and sends messages to the reporter’s spouse predicting adverse personnel measures, whether the resulting dismissal is justified in terms of grounds for discipline, disciplinary severity, and disciplinary procedures.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that, in light of the facts that the employee filed complaints with external institutions and lodged criminal complaints/reports against the reporter, sent messages containing insulting expressions about the reporter to the reporter’s superior, went to the office where the reporter worked and publicly slandered the reporter, and sent messages to the reporter’s then‑spouse predicting adverse personnel measures, such conduct clearly constituted grounds for discipline as it violated the duty of sincerity and the duty to maintain dignity under the service regulations, as well as the “duty to refrain from workplace harassment” under the workplace harassment prevention guidelines.
Furthermore, based on the disciplinary severity standards under the personnel regulations and the disciplinary principles set out in the workplace harassment guidelines, the Commission found that the employer’s choice of dismissal was not so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority, and that, considering the nature of the misconduct, its repetitive nature, and the extent of the harm, the level of discipline could not be deemed objectively and clearly unfair.
In addition, the Commission noted that, in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the personnel regulations, the employer convened a personnel committee, notified the employee of the convening of the committee and thereby afforded an opportunity to present explanations, and notified the employee in writing of the committee’s resolution. Accordingly, the procedures were found to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s requirement to provide “prior notice and an opportunity to be heard,” and there was no defect in the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
While an employee may file external complaints or pursue criminal complaints/reports in the course of alleging workplace harassment or attempting to resolve conflicts, if the manner of doing so expands into repeated insults and slander against a particular co‑worker, or acts such as predicting adverse personnel measures against the co‑worker’s family members, such conduct may be evaluated as exceeding legitimate whistleblowing and instead constituting a violation of the service regulations and the duty to refrain from workplace harassment. In particular, when assessing the appropriateness of disciplinary severity, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts comprehensively consider the content and nature of the misconduct, its repetitiveness, and its impact on workplace order. Employees should therefore avoid emotional reactions and instead use formal procedures (internal reporting systems, official channels) to raise issues based on facts.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important that workplace harassment guidelines and service regulations explicitly specify concrete types of conduct—such as insults, slander, and threats of private personnel disadvantages—and that corresponding disciplinary severity standards be established in advance. For serious disciplinary measures such as disciplinary dismissal, the employer should be able to demonstrate that the measure was selected in accordance with internal disciplinary severity standards, and should thoroughly document and substantiate the circumstances, frequency, and extent of harm caused by the workplace harassment, as well as its impact on organizational order, through personnel committee minutes, investigation reports, victim statements, and similar materials.
In addition, in disciplinary procedures, the employer must properly constitute the personnel or disciplinary committee as prescribed in the personnel regulations and collective agreements, and must fully ensure prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. It is essential to operate clear rules on exclusion and challenge so that interested parties or persons involved in the case are not included as committee members. This is a key point in securing recognition of procedural fairness before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee filed complaints with external institutions and lodged criminal complaints/reports against the reporter, sent messages insulting the reporter to the reporter’s superior, went to the office where the reporter worked and publicly slandered the reporter, and sent messages to the reporter’s then‑spouse predicting adverse personnel measures. These acts constitute grounds for discipline as they violate the duty of sincerity and the duty to maintain dignity under the service regulations, and the duty to refrain from workplace harassment under the workplace harassment guidelines.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary severity
It is difficult to find that the employer’s decision to dismiss the employee, made in accordance with the disciplinary severity standards in the personnel regulations and the disciplinary principles in the workplace harassment guidelines, was so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to amount to an abuse of the discretionary disciplinary authority, or that the content of the discipline was objectively and clearly unfair.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
As the employer, in accordance with the disciplinary procedures set out in the personnel regulations, notified the employee of the convening of the personnel committee and thereby afforded an opportunity to present explanations, and notified the employee in writing of the result of the personnel committee’s resolution, the Commission found no defect in the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee filed complaints with external institutions and lodged criminal complaints/reports against the reporter, sent messages insulting the reporter to the reporter’s superior, went to the office where the reporter worked and publicly slandered the reporter, and sent messages to the reporter’s then‑spouse predicting adverse personnel measures. These acts constitute grounds for discipline as they violate the duty of sincerity and the duty to maintain dignity under the service regulations, and the duty to refrain from workplace harassment under the workplace harassment guidelines.
B. Appropriateness of the disciplinary severity
It is difficult to find that the employer’s decision to dismiss the employee, made in accordance with the disciplinary severity standards in the personnel regulations and the disciplinary principles in the workplace harassment guidelines, was so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to amount to an abuse of the discretionary disciplinary authority, or that the content of the discipline was objectively and clearly unfair.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
As the employer, in accordance with the disciplinary procedures set out in the personnel regulations, notified the employee of the convening of the personnel committee and thereby afforded an opportunity to present explanations, and notified the employee in writing of the result of the personnel committee’s resolution, the Commission found no defect in the disciplinary procedures. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Workplace Harassment (Abusive Language in Group Chat)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · external complaints), disciplinary dismissal, workplace harassment, 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, “Employee Status (Construction Daily Worker) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · external complaints) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment · External Complaints).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
