This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “appropriateness of disciplinary sanction (long-term workplace harassment).” Decision Committee: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae242 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-12 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of key issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline In light of the specific statements and submitted materials of the victim and co-workers, as well as the fact that the employee in this case also admitted to misconduct such as using abusive and vulgar language toward the victim, it was deemed clear that the grounds for discipline in this case existed. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an employee who, after being dismissed for disciplinary reasons due to long-term workplace harassment involving the use of abusive and vulgar language, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the existence of grounds for discipline and the appropriateness of the level of discipline, based on the statements and materials submitted by the victim and co-workers, as well as the employee’s partial admissions. Ultimately, the Commission dismissed the employee’s application and ruled in favor of the employer. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Where long-term workplace harassment, including the use of abusive and vulgar language, is established, whether dismissal of an employee with over 30 years of continuous service constitutes a socially acceptable and justified level of disciplinary sanction.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case found that the specific statements and materials submitted by the victim and co-workers were consistent and highly credible, and that the employee himself admitted to misconduct such as using abusive and vulgar language toward the victim. The panel also noted that the misconduct was not a one-off incident but was repeated over a considerable period, causing discomfort and suffering not only to the victim but also to surrounding co-workers, and that there were additional circumstances of insult and pressure, such as listing the victim’s real name in the employee’s KakaoTalk status message. In light of the above, the Commission held that it was clear that grounds for discipline existed with respect to the employee. Furthermore, the Commission pointed out that the employee, having worked for more than 30 years, was in a position where he should have set an example for other employees, yet instead functioned as a perpetrator of workplace harassment. It also emphasized that the repeated and ongoing misconduct had a negative impact on harmony and work discipline within the company, and that, even under the legal principles governing the determination of disciplinary sanctions, the situation had reached a level at which it would be considered difficult, under social norms, to continue the employment relationship. On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case fell within the employer’s discretionary authority to impose discipline and did not constitute an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should bear in mind that, even with long service or past contributions, repeated and ongoing workplace harassment—particularly the use of abusive and vulgar language and public insults through messenger status messages—can lead to dismissal. Because workplace harassment is assessed as having a serious impact not only on the victim but also on co-workers and the organization as a whole when determining the level of sanction, employees should, at the initial stage of complaints or warnings, immediately cease the conduct and actively pursue mitigating measures such as efforts to remedy the harm and offer apologies. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly specify in the rules of employment and HR regulations the types of workplace harassment and the corresponding disciplinary standards, and to systematically collect and preserve evidence such as statements from the victim and co-workers, relevant messages, and recordings. Where the perpetrator is a long-serving or senior employee, the employer should comprehensively organize factors such as the exemplary conduct expected from that position, the repetitiveness and duration of the conduct, and the impact on organizational culture and corporate order, so as to be able to logically demonstrate that the level of discipline is not excessively harsh by social standards. This decision once again confirms that the Labor Relations Commission assesses not only the existence of grounds for discipline, but also various factors related to the determination of the level of discipline—such as the employee’s career and position, the duration and repetitiveness of the misconduct, and the degree of harm—when determining whether a dismissal is unfair. In similar cases, it is advisable to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to thoroughly review the facts, secure evidence, and examine the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction in advance. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence of grounds for discipline In light of the specific statements and submitted materials of the victim and co-workers, as well as the fact that the employee in this case also admitted to misconduct such as using abusive and vulgar language toward the victim, it is deemed clear that the grounds for discipline in this case existed. B. Appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction The employee has more than 30 years of service and is therefore in a position where he should set an example for other employees. The employee’s misconduct appears not to have been a one-off incident but to have been committed over a long period. It appears that not only the victim but also co-workers suffered considerable discomfort and distress, and the employee listed the victim’s real name in his KakaoTalk status message… 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Existence of grounds for discipline In light of the specific statements and submitted materials of the victim and co-workers, as well as the fact that the employee in this case also admitted to misconduct such as using abusive and vulgar language toward the victim, it is deemed clear that the grounds for discipline in this case existed. B. Appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction The employee has more than 30 years of service and is therefore in a position where he should set an example for other employees. The employee’s misconduct appears not to have been a one-off incident but to have been committed over a long period. It appears that not only the victim but also co-workers suffered considerable discomfort and distress, and the employee listed the victim’s real name in his KakaoTalk status message… / [More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Voluntary Resignation Letter After Suspension)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, appropriateness of disciplinary sanction (long-term 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Voluntary Resignation Letter After Suspension)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to appropriateness of disciplinary sanction (long-term workplace harassment) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanction (Long-Term Workplace Harassment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article