[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “violent conduct (threats against a co-worker).” Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae137 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-20 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: … is recognized when the circumstances are considered as a whole. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee was dismissed after committing violent acts against a co-worker, including choking and threatening with a weapon, and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy on the grounds of unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of the dismissal primarily in light of the impact that the employee’s conduct had on the working environment and performance of duties at the workplace, even though the conduct occurred in a private space and outside working hours. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether “repeated acts of violence and threats against a co-worker that occurred outside working hours and in a private space can be evaluated as a violation of workplace order sufficient to justify dismissal, and whether the level of discipline (dismissal) is not excessively harsh by social standards.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case noted that the employee’s violent and threatening conduct was repeated three times over approximately one year and two months; that the conduct included acts such as choking and threatening with a weapon, which could cause serious harm to life and body; that the victimized co-worker suffered bodily injury and severe psychological harm and is still undergoing treatment; and that, because the perpetrator and victim worked together on the same team, the working environment and performance of duties were in fact seriously impaired. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the conduct, although occurring outside working hours and in a private space, could not be regarded as a mere matter of private life, but should be evaluated as having a direct adverse impact on workplace order and safety and on the working environment. The Commission determined that, considering the seriousness and repetitiveness of the misconduct, the extent of the harm, and the organizational characteristic that the parties belonged to the same team, the dismissal in this case constituted a legitimate ground for disciplinary action, and that dismissal as the level of discipline could not be considered markedly excessive by social standards. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should bear in mind that, even if they argue that an incident occurred “outside working hours and in a private setting,” if the other party is a co-worker at the same workplace and the conduct in fact disrupts the working environment or performance of duties, discipline—and even dismissal—may be justified. In particular, where acts such as assault, bodily injury, or threats with a weapon that can cause serious harm to life and body are repeated, the Labor Relations Commission tends to recognize a broad scope of the employer’s discretion in imposing discipline. Therefore, employees must strictly avoid responding to conflicts with violence or threats. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when violent or threatening conduct occurs between co-workers, it is important to objectively investigate and record the circumstances and frequency of occurrence, the specific means used (including whether a weapon was used), the extent of the harm, the team structure, and the impact on work. In addition, the rules of employment should clearly stipulate that violence against co-workers or superiors, workplace bullying, and even violence outside the workplace that impairs the working environment constitute grounds for discipline. Employers should also put in place preventive education, as well as counseling and reporting channels, so that the legitimacy of disciplinary measures can be more readily recognized by the Labor Relations Commission. In this type of unfair dismissal dispute, both employees and employers are advised to seek advice from a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to systematically organize the facts and examine the legal issues from the early stages of the case. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History … is recognized when the circumstances are considered as a whole. Even though the conduct took place outside working hours and in a private space, since the other party was a co-worker employed at the same workplace, it cannot be regarded as remaining solely within the realm of private life, and because the working environment and performance of duties were in fact impaired, it constitutes a legitimate ground for discipline. b. Whether the Level of Discipline (Dismissal) Is Appropriate The misconduct was repeated three times over approximately one year and two months and included acts such as choking and threatening with a weapon, which could cause serious harm to life and body; the victim suffered bodily injury and psychological harm and is still undergoing treatment; and the employee and the victim worked together on the same team … 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … is recognized when the circumstances are considered as a whole. Even though the conduct took place outside working hours and in a private space, since the other party was a co-worker employed at the same workplace, it cannot be regarded as remaining solely within the realm of private life, and because the working environment and performance of duties were in fact impaired, it constitutes a legitimate ground for discipline. b. Whether the Level of Discipline (Dismissal) Is Appropriate The misconduct was repeated three times over approximately one year and two months and included acts such as choking and threatening with a weapon, which could cause serious harm to life and body; the victim suffered bodily injury and psychological harm and is still undergoing treatment; and the employee and the victim worked together on the same team … / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed - ‘Legitimacy of Transfer (Measures to Separate Workplace Bullying Parties)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, violent conduct (threats against a co-worker), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Redundancy Dismissal (End of Subcontract at Construction Site)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to violent conduct (threats against a co-worker) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Violent Conduct (Threats Against a Co-worker)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article