Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Branch Manager’s Workplace Bullying)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 504)
- Date2026/06/29 04:13
- Read 25
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of grounds for disciplinary action (branch manager’s workplace bullying).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae100 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy from Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-17 · Case Number: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Legitimacy of the grounds for disciplinary action: As branch manager, the employee was in a position of clear superiority over the victimized employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee working as a branch manager was dismissed for cause on the ground of workplace bullying, and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy from unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on which of the branch manager’s various acts constituted workplace bullying, and whether dismissal for cause based on those acts was justified.
Labor Law Firm Law& considers it important, in this type of case, to clearly distinguish between (i) the existence of grounds for disciplinary action and (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline (quantum of sanction).
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were:
“Whether the branch manager’s instructions to a subordinate employee to perform work while on leave or after working hours, and to run personal errands, constituted workplace bullying; and, even if some workplace bullying is recognized, whether dismissal for cause is justified.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, given that the employee, as branch manager, was clearly in a superior position to the victimized employee; repeatedly pressed the employee to handle work matters while on leave; instructed the employee to perform personal errands after working hours; and ordered on-site inspections during leave, holidays, and after working hours, these acts exceeded the scope of what was necessary for work and caused the victimized employee mental distress, thereby constituting workplace bullying.
The panel held that acts such as pressing for work processing during leave amounted to workplace bullying and therefore that grounds for disciplinary action did exist.
However, with respect to the apparent demands to change the dates of leave or to use half-day leave, the panel found that, since there were only four employees at the workplace, there was a need for mutual adjustment of leave among employees, and that the adjustment process did not rise to the level of unjustly restricting the use of annual paid leave under the Labor Standards Act. On that basis, it held that these acts could not readily be deemed to have exceeded the appropriate scope of work-related necessity.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that, even if an instruction comes from a superior, repeated work instructions or personal errands given during leave, on holidays, or after working hours may constitute workplace bullying if they infringe on the employee’s personal rights and cause mental distress. In particular, the higher the employee’s position, the more that words and instructions directed to subordinates can become grounds for disciplinary action the moment they exceed the “scope necessary for work.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to establish clear internal rules on matters such as adjustment of leave, standards for giving work instructions on holidays or after working hours, and prohibition of personal instructions, and to provide manager training to prevent workplace bullying that exploits positional superiority.
In addition, even where some workplace bullying is recognized, the legitimacy of dismissal for cause is assessed strictly according to separate criteria (degree of misconduct, likelihood of recurrence, work attitude, impact on corporate order, etc.). On that premise, employers should determine the level of disciplinary sanction with great care.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the grounds for disciplinary action: As branch manager, the employee was in a position of superiority over the victimized employee. The acts of pressing for work processing during leave, instructing personal errands after working hours, and ordering on-site inspections during leave, holidays, and after working hours exceeded the appropriate scope of work-related necessity and caused the victimized employee mental distress, thereby constituting workplace bullying. However, the acts of demanding changes to leave dates and forcing the use of half-day leave appeared to be mutual adjustment of leave in a workplace with only four employees, and thus could not readily be recognized as exceeding the appropriate scope of work-related necessity. Since acts such as pressing for work processing during leave constituted workplace bullying, grounds for disciplinary action did exist. B...
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Legitimacy of the grounds for disciplinary action: As branch manager, the employee was in a position of superiority over the victimized employee. The acts of pressing for work processing during leave, instructing personal errands after working hours, and ordering on-site inspections during leave, holidays, and after working hours exceeded the appropriate scope of work-related necessity and caused the victimized employee mental distress, thereby constituting workplace bullying. However, the acts of demanding changes to leave dates and forcing the use of half-day leave appeared to be mutual adjustment of leave in a workplace with only four employees, and thus could not readily be recognized as exceeding the appropriate scope of work-related necessity. Since acts such as pressing for work processing during leave constituted workplace bullying, grounds for disciplinary action did exist. B... /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Fewer Than Five Regular Employees (Small Private Academy)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)”’ – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of grounds for disciplinary action (branch manager’s workplace bullying), workplace bullying, dismissal for cause, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Fewer Than Five Regular Employees (Small Private Academy)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of grounds for disciplinary action (branch manager’s workplace bullying) can be viewed together on the “Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Branch Manager’s Workplace Bullying) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of grounds for disciplinary action (branch manager’s workplace bullying).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae100 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy from Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-17 · Case Number: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Legitimacy of the grounds for disciplinary action: As branch manager, the employee was in a position of clear superiority over the victimized employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee working as a branch manager was dismissed for cause on the ground of workplace bullying, and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy from unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on which of the branch manager’s various acts constituted workplace bullying, and whether dismissal for cause based on those acts was justified.
Labor Law Firm Law& considers it important, in this type of case, to clearly distinguish between (i) the existence of grounds for disciplinary action and (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline (quantum of sanction).
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were:
“Whether the branch manager’s instructions to a subordinate employee to perform work while on leave or after working hours, and to run personal errands, constituted workplace bullying; and, even if some workplace bullying is recognized, whether dismissal for cause is justified.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, given that the employee, as branch manager, was clearly in a superior position to the victimized employee; repeatedly pressed the employee to handle work matters while on leave; instructed the employee to perform personal errands after working hours; and ordered on-site inspections during leave, holidays, and after working hours, these acts exceeded the scope of what was necessary for work and caused the victimized employee mental distress, thereby constituting workplace bullying.
The panel held that acts such as pressing for work processing during leave amounted to workplace bullying and therefore that grounds for disciplinary action did exist.
However, with respect to the apparent demands to change the dates of leave or to use half-day leave, the panel found that, since there were only four employees at the workplace, there was a need for mutual adjustment of leave among employees, and that the adjustment process did not rise to the level of unjustly restricting the use of annual paid leave under the Labor Standards Act. On that basis, it held that these acts could not readily be deemed to have exceeded the appropriate scope of work-related necessity.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that, even if an instruction comes from a superior, repeated work instructions or personal errands given during leave, on holidays, or after working hours may constitute workplace bullying if they infringe on the employee’s personal rights and cause mental distress. In particular, the higher the employee’s position, the more that words and instructions directed to subordinates can become grounds for disciplinary action the moment they exceed the “scope necessary for work.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to establish clear internal rules on matters such as adjustment of leave, standards for giving work instructions on holidays or after working hours, and prohibition of personal instructions, and to provide manager training to prevent workplace bullying that exploits positional superiority.
In addition, even where some workplace bullying is recognized, the legitimacy of dismissal for cause is assessed strictly according to separate criteria (degree of misconduct, likelihood of recurrence, work attitude, impact on corporate order, etc.). On that premise, employers should determine the level of disciplinary sanction with great care.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the grounds for disciplinary action: As branch manager, the employee was in a position of superiority over the victimized employee. The acts of pressing for work processing during leave, instructing personal errands after working hours, and ordering on-site inspections during leave, holidays, and after working hours exceeded the appropriate scope of work-related necessity and caused the victimized employee mental distress, thereby constituting workplace bullying. However, the acts of demanding changes to leave dates and forcing the use of half-day leave appeared to be mutual adjustment of leave in a workplace with only four employees, and thus could not readily be recognized as exceeding the appropriate scope of work-related necessity. Since acts such as pressing for work processing during leave constituted workplace bullying, grounds for disciplinary action did exist. B...
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Legitimacy of the grounds for disciplinary action: As branch manager, the employee was in a position of superiority over the victimized employee. The acts of pressing for work processing during leave, instructing personal errands after working hours, and ordering on-site inspections during leave, holidays, and after working hours exceeded the appropriate scope of work-related necessity and caused the victimized employee mental distress, thereby constituting workplace bullying. However, the acts of demanding changes to leave dates and forcing the use of half-day leave appeared to be mutual adjustment of leave in a workplace with only four employees, and thus could not readily be recognized as exceeding the appropriate scope of work-related necessity. Since acts such as pressing for work processing during leave constituted workplace bullying, grounds for disciplinary action did exist. B... /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Fewer Than Five Regular Employees (Small Private Academy)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)”’ – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of grounds for disciplinary action (branch manager’s workplace bullying), workplace bullying, dismissal for cause, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Fewer Than Five Regular Employees (Small Private Academy)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of grounds for disciplinary action (branch manager’s workplace bullying) can be viewed together on the “Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Branch Manager’s Workplace Bullying) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
