[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (prolonged workplace harassment).” Decision date: 2026-08-12 · Decision body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해242 Summary of key issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline In light of the specific statements and documentary evidence submitted by the victim and co‑workers, and the fact that the employee in this case also admitted to misconduct such as using abusive and vulgar language toward the victim, the Commission found that the existence of grounds for discipline in this case was clearly established. 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case concerns an application for remedy against disciplinary dismissal heard by the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission recognized both the appropriateness of the level of discipline and the lawfulness of the procedure, and dismissed the employee’s application. Through this decision, Labor Law Firm Law& seeks to summarize how prolonged verbal abuse and shouting, and insulting KakaoTalk status messages, are reflected in the determination of disciplinary severity, and how to prepare disciplinary procedures. Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns a long‑serving employee with more than 30 years of service who was dismissed for cause on the grounds that, in the workplace, he had for an extended period directed abusive language and verbal abuse at a particular co‑worker, and had engaged in misconduct such as posting the victim’s real name together with a derogatory phrase (“Beware of forest fires”) in his KakaoTalk status message. The employee challenged the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure, and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. However, the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission held that the employer’s disciplinary action was justified and dismissed the application for remedy. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where prolonged abusive language and verbal abuse, insulting remarks and conduct, and infringement of personality rights through KakaoTalk status messages are acknowledged, the disciplinary dismissal of an employee with more than 30 years of service constitutes excessively severe discipline that is manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and whether the disciplinary procedure was lawfully conducted. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that the specific statements and documentary evidence submitted by the victim and co‑workers were consistent, that the employee himself admitted to misconduct such as using abusive and vulgar language, that the misconduct was not a one‑off incident but was repeated over a long period, and that not only the victim but also surrounding co‑workers suffered considerable discomfort and mental distress. On this basis, the Commission held that the existence of grounds for discipline in this case was clearly established. Furthermore, the Commission took into account that the employee had worked for more than 30 years and was therefore in a position where he should have set an example for other employees; that, despite having a prior record of similar disciplinary action, he repeated similar conduct without improvement; and that the act of posting the victim’s real name together with the phrase “Beware of forest fires” in his KakaoTalk status message could cause the victim serious humiliation and mental distress. Considering these factors in their entirety, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that the level of discipline was manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms. In addition, the company, in accordance with its rules of employment, convened both a first‑instance disciplinary committee and an appellate disciplinary committee; at each stage, the employee was given an opportunity to appear and present his explanation, and he in fact appeared and explained himself in person; and a written notice of disciplinary action was delivered. In light of these facts, the Commission held that there was no substantial defect in the disciplinary procedure and that, as the employee did not raise any separate objection to the procedure itself, procedural fairness was established. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even where grounds for discipline exist, for a disciplinary dismissal to be found to constitute unfair dismissal, it must be possible to prove that, in light of the nature, degree, and frequency of the misconduct and its impact on workplace order, the level of discipline is manifestly excessive according to social norms. In particular, prolonged and repeated abusive language and verbal abuse, and public and continuous acts of humiliation such as KakaoTalk status messages, are evaluated as causing serious infringement of personality rights and disruption of workplace order. Employees should be aware that, in such cases, long service or a partial expression of remorse alone will rarely be sufficient to overturn the level of discipline. Moreover, where an employee has appeared before the disciplinary committee and presented explanations, minor procedural defects relating to prior notice or the opportunity to explain are generally deemed cured. In practice, therefore, it is more important to prepare concrete evidence focusing on the facts and on whether the level of discipline is disproportionate, rather than contesting only procedural illegality. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, in cases of workplace harassment and infringement of personality rights such as prolonged abusive language and verbal abuse, and insulting KakaoTalk messages, it is important to sufficiently collect and organize specific evidence such as written statements from the victim, witness statements, and captured images of relevant messages, in order to facilitate recognition of the existence of grounds for discipline by the Labor Relations Commission. With respect to the level of discipline, it is advisable to systematically consider the factors indicated in Supreme Court precedents—such as the employee’s position and length of service, the repetitive nature of the misconduct, the degree of harm suffered, and any prior disciplinary history—and to record the reasoning process in the disciplinary committee’s resolution and minutes. On the procedural side, employers should not only formally comply with the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment and collective agreements (prior notice, opportunity to appear and explain, first‑instance and appellate procedures, etc.), but also actually implement them. It is important to document objectively the employee’s attendance and explanations, and whether the written notice of disciplinary action was received, so that procedural fairness can be more easily defended in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute. This type of decision shows that, where the grounds for discipline are objectively serious and repetitive, and where the level of discipline cannot readily be regarded as manifestly excessive in light of social norms, the Labor Relations Commission tends to afford broad deference to the employer’s discretion in imposing discipline. To prevent disputes over unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissals, both employees and employers should carefully review and balance the three elements of grounds for discipline, level of discipline, and disciplinary procedure. 2. Decision A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the application for remedy was dismissed on the grounds that: (i) the grounds for discipline—prolonged abusive language and verbal abuse, insulting remarks and conduct, etc.—were acknowledged; (ii) the level of discipline was not so excessive as to constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretion in imposing discipline; and (iii) the disciplinary procedure was lawfully conducted, including the provision of an opportunity to explain, and the employee raised no objection to the disciplinary procedure. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings (1) Existence of Grounds for Discipline In light of the specific statements and documentary evidence submitted by the victim and co‑workers, and the fact that the employee in this case also admitted to misconduct such as using abusive and vulgar language toward the victim, the Commission found that the existence of grounds for discipline in this case was clearly established. (2) Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline The employee had more than 30 years of service and was therefore in a position where he should have set an example for other employees; his misconduct appears not to have been a one‑off incident but to have been committed over a long period; not only the victim but also co‑workers appear to have suffered considerable discomfort and distress; the act of posting the victim’s real name together with the phrase “Beware of forest fires” in his KakaoTalk status message appears to be conduct capable of causing the victim significant mental distress and humiliation; and, despite having a prior record of similar disciplinary action, he did not correct his behavior and repeated similar misconduct. Considering these factors in their entirety, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that the level of discipline in this case was excessive or that the employer abused its discretion in imposing discipline. (3) Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure There was no objection to the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure. The company, pursuant to its rules of employment, convened a first‑instance disciplinary committee and an appellate disciplinary committee, and provided the employee with an opportunity to explain. The employee appeared before both the first‑instance and appellate disciplinary committees and provided explanations in person, and it is clear that he received the written notice of disciplinary action. Accordingly, the Commission found that there was no procedural defect in the disciplinary action. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Interest in Remedy and Refusal to Re‑Employ (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (prolonged workplace harassment), disciplinary dismissal, workplace harassment, 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 on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Voluntary Resignation Letter after Suspension)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (prolonged workplace harassment) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Prolonged Workplace Harassment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article