Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Workplace Bullying (Attendance Record Inquiry)” (Unfair Dismissal 482)
- Date2026/05/26 04:04
- Read 73
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “workplace bullying (attendance record inquiry).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae112 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.19 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: The employer treated the employee’s act of checking department members’ attendance records as workplace bullying and used it as grounds for disciplinary action. However, the attendance record inquiry system was structured so that any department member could access it for work purposes, the employee did not exceed the granted access authority, and there was no evidence that the inquiry was used to monitor or harass any specific individual. Accordingly, the act did not constitute workplace bullying, and no grounds for discipline existed…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer regarded the employee’s act of checking department members’ attendance records as workplace bullying and imposed disciplinary dismissal. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, which was adjudicated by the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission examined whether grounds for discipline existed, focusing on the structure of the attendance management system, the circumstances of the inquiry, and whether the conduct constituted workplace bullying.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the use of an attendance record inquiry function, which is granted to anyone for work purposes, can constitute workplace bullying and grounds for disciplinary dismissal in the absence of any separate intent to bully or circumstances of abuse.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the attendance record inquiry system was structured so that any department member could access it for work-related purposes; that there was no indication the employee had engaged in unauthorized access or technical circumvention beyond the granted access authority; and that there was no objective evidence that the inquiry was intended to monitor, pressure, or harass any specific individual.
In light of these points, the Commission held that the mere act of checking attendance records could not readily be regarded as “workplace bullying,” and that no grounds for disciplinary dismissal existed based on such conduct.
Since the grounds for disciplinary action themselves were not established, the dismissal was found to be unfair without any need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the legality of the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should understand that, as a rule, using information within the scope of system access rights granted by the company, for work-related purposes, does not in itself constitute grounds for discipline. However, even the same conduct may be evaluated as workplace bullying if it is used to repeatedly or selectively target a particular colleague for monitoring or to create negative sentiment against them. Particular care should therefore be taken with respect to the purpose and manner of use.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to clearly define, in the rules of employment and internal guidelines, the scope of access rights and purposes of use for HR information systems such as attendance records, and to provide prior guidance on specific types of conduct that constitute workplace bullying. In unfair dismissal disputes, the burden of proof regarding the existence and justification of disciplinary grounds lies with the employer. Employers should therefore avoid hastily deciding on disciplinary dismissal without sufficiently securing objective evidence concerning the intent to bully, the nature of the harm, and the circumstances of the alleged bullying.
In cases of this type, it is important to bear in mind that, with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, accurately applying the legal principles on unfair dismissal and the criteria for determining workplace bullying, and carefully organizing the facts, is crucial for both preventing and responding to disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employer treated the employee’s act of checking department members’ attendance records as workplace bullying and used it as grounds for discipline. However, the attendance record inquiry system was structured so that any department member could access it for work purposes, the employee did not exceed the granted access authority, and there was no evidence that the inquiry was intended to monitor or harass any specific individual. Accordingly, the conduct did not constitute workplace bullying, and it was determined that no grounds for discipline existed. Therefore, there was no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the legality of the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employer treated the employee’s act of checking department members’ attendance records as workplace bullying and used it as grounds for discipline. However, the attendance record inquiry system was structured so that any department member could access it for work purposes, the employee did not exceed the granted access authority, and there was no evidence that the inquiry was intended to monitor or harass any specific individual. Accordingly, the conduct did not constitute workplace bullying, and it was determined that no grounds for discipline existed. Therefore, there was no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the legality of the disciplinary procedures. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, workplace bullying (attendance record inquiry), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, 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, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Handwritten Resignation Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to workplace bullying (attendance record inquiry) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Workplace Bullying (Attendance Record Inquiry).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “workplace bullying (attendance record inquiry).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae112 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.19 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: The employer treated the employee’s act of checking department members’ attendance records as workplace bullying and used it as grounds for disciplinary action. However, the attendance record inquiry system was structured so that any department member could access it for work purposes, the employee did not exceed the granted access authority, and there was no evidence that the inquiry was used to monitor or harass any specific individual. Accordingly, the act did not constitute workplace bullying, and no grounds for discipline existed…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer regarded the employee’s act of checking department members’ attendance records as workplace bullying and imposed disciplinary dismissal. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, which was adjudicated by the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission examined whether grounds for discipline existed, focusing on the structure of the attendance management system, the circumstances of the inquiry, and whether the conduct constituted workplace bullying.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the use of an attendance record inquiry function, which is granted to anyone for work purposes, can constitute workplace bullying and grounds for disciplinary dismissal in the absence of any separate intent to bully or circumstances of abuse.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the attendance record inquiry system was structured so that any department member could access it for work-related purposes; that there was no indication the employee had engaged in unauthorized access or technical circumvention beyond the granted access authority; and that there was no objective evidence that the inquiry was intended to monitor, pressure, or harass any specific individual.
In light of these points, the Commission held that the mere act of checking attendance records could not readily be regarded as “workplace bullying,” and that no grounds for disciplinary dismissal existed based on such conduct.
Since the grounds for disciplinary action themselves were not established, the dismissal was found to be unfair without any need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the legality of the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should understand that, as a rule, using information within the scope of system access rights granted by the company, for work-related purposes, does not in itself constitute grounds for discipline. However, even the same conduct may be evaluated as workplace bullying if it is used to repeatedly or selectively target a particular colleague for monitoring or to create negative sentiment against them. Particular care should therefore be taken with respect to the purpose and manner of use.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to clearly define, in the rules of employment and internal guidelines, the scope of access rights and purposes of use for HR information systems such as attendance records, and to provide prior guidance on specific types of conduct that constitute workplace bullying. In unfair dismissal disputes, the burden of proof regarding the existence and justification of disciplinary grounds lies with the employer. Employers should therefore avoid hastily deciding on disciplinary dismissal without sufficiently securing objective evidence concerning the intent to bully, the nature of the harm, and the circumstances of the alleged bullying.
In cases of this type, it is important to bear in mind that, with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, accurately applying the legal principles on unfair dismissal and the criteria for determining workplace bullying, and carefully organizing the facts, is crucial for both preventing and responding to disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employer treated the employee’s act of checking department members’ attendance records as workplace bullying and used it as grounds for discipline. However, the attendance record inquiry system was structured so that any department member could access it for work purposes, the employee did not exceed the granted access authority, and there was no evidence that the inquiry was intended to monitor or harass any specific individual. Accordingly, the conduct did not constitute workplace bullying, and it was determined that no grounds for discipline existed. Therefore, there was no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the legality of the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employer treated the employee’s act of checking department members’ attendance records as workplace bullying and used it as grounds for discipline. However, the attendance record inquiry system was structured so that any department member could access it for work purposes, the employee did not exceed the granted access authority, and there was no evidence that the inquiry was intended to monitor or harass any specific individual. Accordingly, the conduct did not constitute workplace bullying, and it was determined that no grounds for discipline existed. Therefore, there was no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline or the legality of the disciplinary procedures. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, workplace bullying (attendance record inquiry), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, 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, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Handwritten Resignation Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to workplace bullying (attendance record inquiry) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Workplace Bullying (Attendance Record Inquiry).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
