[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (muttered swearing).” Decision Committee: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae624 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-29 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of key issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline Although the employee swore as a “mutter to himself,” it was loud enough to be heard by those nearby and was therefore evaluated as conduct damaging to the dignity of an employee, so that grounds for discipline were found to exist. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee muttered swear words while on duty, was referred to the disciplinary committee, and received a “reprimand” disposition. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy on the ground that this constituted an unfair dismissal (unfair discipline). The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a hearing focused on (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application for remedy. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case are whether “swearing uttered by an employee as a mutter to himself constitutes grounds for discipline, whether the reprimand imposed for such conduct is an unfair disciplinary measure that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and whether the disciplinary committee procedures were conducted lawfully.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that, although the employee’s swearing took the form of a mutter to himself, it was loud enough to be heard by those nearby and could therefore be evaluated as conduct damaging to the dignity of an employee; that a reprimand is one of the lightest forms of discipline, which is recorded only in the personnel file and does not entail any substantive loss such as restrictions on promotion or reduction in wages; and that, prior to convening the disciplinary committee, the employer served the employee with a notice to appear and provided an opportunity to explain, and there was no evidence of any objective defect in the composition of the committee. Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal (disciplinary) disposition in this case was based on grounds for discipline, that the level of discipline could not be regarded as manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and that there was no substantial defect in the disciplinary procedure, and therefore determined that it was not unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should bear in mind that, even if they are “just muttering to themselves,” the use of swear words or vulgar expressions loud enough for nearby colleagues to hear can constitute grounds for discipline as conduct damaging to the dignity of an employee. Furthermore, even where there is no actual monetary loss, as in the case of a reprimand or warning, disciplinary measures that remain in the personnel record can operate as unfavorable factors when more severe measures such as redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal are later considered. It is therefore important from the outset to carefully examine the facts and the lawfulness of the procedures. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective) From the employer’s side, it is advisable to clearly set out in the rules of employment the disciplinary standards applicable to swearing, verbal abuse, and other forms of verbal violence in the workplace, and, when actually imposing discipline, to determine the level of discipline by comprehensively considering factors such as the employee’s past record, the motives and circumstances, and the extent of harm. In addition, procedural requirements such as serving a notice to appear and providing an opportunity to explain prior to convening the disciplinary committee should be documented, as doing so will make it easier to have the legitimacy of the discipline recognized at the Labor Relations Commission or in court. In unfair dismissal/disciplinary cases of this type, it is important to organize the facts in line with the standards recognized by the Labor Relations Commission and to accurately grasp the limits of discretion in determining the level of discipline. Where necessary, disputes should be prevented and addressed with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Determined A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence of grounds for discipline Although the employee swore as a mutter to himself, it was loud enough to be heard by those nearby and was therefore evaluated as conduct damaging to the dignity of an employee, so that grounds for discipline were found to exist. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline In light of the fact that a reprimand is recorded only in the personnel file and does not entail substantive loss such as disadvantages in promotion or reduction in wages, it is difficult to view the measure as having lost its reasonableness to a degree that is manifest in light of social norms or as an abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority. C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure Prior to convening the disciplinary committee, the employer served the employee with a notice to appear and provided an opportunity to explain, and there is no evidence of any objective defect in the composition of the disciplinary committee... 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Existence of grounds for discipline Although the employee swore as a mutter to himself, it was loud enough to be heard by those nearby and was therefore evaluated as conduct damaging to the dignity of an employee, so that grounds for discipline were found to exist. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline In light of the fact that a reprimand is recorded only in the personnel file and does not entail substantive loss such as disadvantages in promotion or reduction in wages, it is difficult to view the measure as having lost its reasonableness to a degree that is manifest in light of social norms or as an abuse of the discretion granted to the disciplinary authority. C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure Prior to convening the disciplinary committee, the employer served the employee with a notice to appear and provided an opportunity to explain, and there is no evidence of any objective defect in the composition of the disciplinary committee... / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Requirements for Legal Application (Business with Four Employees)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (muttered swearing), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · noncompliance 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Requirements for Legal Application (Business with Four Employees)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (muttered swearing) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Muttered Swearing)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article