[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “violent conduct (threatening a co‑worker).” Decision date: 2026-08-20 · Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae137 Key issue summary: A. Existence of grounds for discipline It was found, based on videos, photographs, medical certificates for injury, psychiatric opinions, post‑incident conversation records, and the employee’s own statements, that on three occasions—2024. 12. 31., 2025. 10. 26., and 2026. 2. 8.—the employee verbally abused and assaulted a co‑worker in the same department, damaged property, and threatened the co‑worker with a weapon. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an application for relief from unfair dismissal arising from an employer’s disciplinary dismissal of an employee who, on three separate occasions, verbally abused and assaulted a co‑worker in the same department, damaged property, and threatened the co‑worker with a weapon. Through the Labor Relations Commission procedure, the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, the legality of the disciplinary procedure, and the written notice of dismissal, and rendered a decision in favor of the employer. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case are whether repeated acts of assault and threats with a weapon against a co‑worker, occurring in a private space outside working hours, constitute just cause for disciplinary dismissal, and whether the level of discipline, the procedure, and the written notice of dismissal are lawful and justified under the Labor Standards Act and relevant case law. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found, based on videos, photographs, medical certificates for injury, psychiatric opinions, post‑incident conversation records, and the employee’s statements, that the three instances of verbal abuse, assault, property damage, and threats with a weapon actually occurred. Although the conduct took place in a private space outside working hours, the victim was a co‑worker employed at the same business, and the conduct in fact caused serious disruption to the working environment and performance of duties. Throughout the disciplinary process, notices to appear and opportunities to explain were provided, there were no defects in the composition of the personnel committee or the reconsideration procedure, and the grounds and timing of the dismissal were notified in writing so that the purpose of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act was satisfied. Considering that the misconduct was repeated three times over approximately one year and two months and included violence and threats with a weapon that posed a serious risk to life and bodily integrity; that the victim suffered physical injury and psychological harm and is still undergoing treatment; that the parties had been in a long‑term relationship while working on the same team, making it difficult to expect that mere separation of duties or transfer would adequately protect the victim and normalize the work environment; and that, even taking into account the absence of prior disciplinary history, it is difficult to regard the disciplinary dismissal as manifestly lacking in reasonableness by social standards, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was justified in terms of grounds, level of discipline, and procedure. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should be aware that even if an incident occurs in a private space outside working hours, where the other party is a co‑worker at the same workplace and the conduct actually causes fear, anxiety, or disruption to the working environment and performance of duties, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts will no longer treat it purely as a matter of “private life.” In particular, where acts such as assault and threats with a weapon—conduct that poses a serious risk to life and bodily integrity—are repeated, the conduct may be evaluated as grounds that make continuation of the employment relationship impossible by social standards, and disciplinary dismissal may be found justified even in the absence of prior disciplinary history. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly set out in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the grounds for discipline and the criteria for the level of discipline in relation to workplace violence and threats, and, when an incident occurs, to secure sufficient objective evidence such as videos, photographs, medical certificates, counseling opinions, and conversation records, and to strictly observe procedural fairness, including notices to appear before the personnel committee, opportunities to explain, and reconsideration procedures. In order to determine whether a disciplinary dismissal is not manifestly unreasonable by social standards, employers should also keep records showing a comprehensive review of the number, duration, and nature of the misconduct; the extent of the harm; the feasibility of protecting the victim (effectiveness of alternative measures such as separation of duties or transfer); and the employee’s past work attitude. Doing so will increase the likelihood that the dismissal will be upheld as justified by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that, even though the employee’s three instances of verbal abuse, assault, property damage, and threats with a weapon against a co‑worker in the same department occurred in a private space, they constituted just cause for discipline, and that the disciplinary dismissal based on such conduct was also justified in terms of the level of discipline and the procedure. 3. Summary of Reasoning A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Whether grounds for discipline exist It is recognized, based on videos, photographs, medical certificates for injury, psychiatric opinions, post‑incident conversation records, and the employee’s own statements, that on three occasions—2024. 12. 31., 2025. 10. 26., and 2026. 2. 8.—the employee verbally abused and assaulted a co‑worker in the same department, damaged property, and threatened the co‑worker with a weapon. Even though this conduct took place in a private space outside working hours, because the victim was a co‑worker employed at the same business, it cannot be regarded as remaining solely within the realm of private life, and as it in fact caused disruption to the working environment and performance of duties, it constitutes just cause 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 threats with a weapon that could cause serious harm to life and bodily integrity. The victim suffered physical injury and psychological harm and is still undergoing treatment. Given that the employee and the victim had been in a long‑term relationship while working on the same team, it is difficult to expect that merely separating their duties within the team or transferring one of them to another workplace would adequately protect the victim and normalize the work environment. Therefore, even taking into account that the employee had worked without any prior disciplinary record, it is difficult to regard the disciplinary dismissal as a disposition that is manifestly lacking in reasonableness by social standards. c. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful The notice period for appearance before the personnel committee was observed, opportunities to explain were provided at each stage of investigation, first‑instance review, and reconsideration, and there are no circumstances indicating that the exercise of the employee’s right to defense was substantially impaired. There were also no defects in the composition of the personnel committee or in the reconsideration procedure. d. Whether the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal was observed The disciplinary notice specified the grounds for dismissal and the timing of the dismissal, and even if the description was somewhat abbreviated, the employee was concretely aware of the grounds for dismissal through the investigation process and the first‑instance personnel committee. Accordingly, it cannot be viewed that the employer violated the obligation of written notice prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. e. Conclusion Grounds for discipline exist, and considering the nature and degree of the misconduct, its repetition, and the extent of the harm, the dismissal cannot be regarded as an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretion regarding the level of discipline. As there are no defects in the disciplinary procedure or in the written notice of dismissal, the disciplinary dismissal is justified. [Further Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Level of Discipline (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Level of Discipline (Participation in Outsourced Work for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, violent conduct (threatening a co‑worker), disciplinary dismissal, 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. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Redundancy Dismissal (End of Subcontract at Construction Site)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to violent conduct (threatening a co‑worker) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Violent Conduct (Threatening a Co‑worker).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article