[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive severity of disciplinary measure (workplace harassment and unauthorized absence during a placement on standby).” Decision date: 2026-08-05 · Decision body: Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae201 Key issue summary: A. Whether grounds for discipline existed The employee partially acknowledged fault only with respect to dozing off and being late during working hours among the various acts of misconduct cited by the employer as grounds for discipline, while denying all other alleged misconduct. However, in light of the objective evidence and surrounding circumstances confirmed in the case, the Commission found that there were grounds for discipline against the employee for “violation of company rules and neglect of duties, and workplace harassment of a fellow employee,” whereas treating the period of placement on standby as unauthorized absence… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on the employee for violation of company rules, neglect of duties, and workplace harassment of a fellow employee. The employee then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission found that only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established and held that, in light of the established grounds, dismissal was excessively severe as a disciplinary measure, and therefore constituted unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is: “Even if some grounds for discipline such as violation of company rules, neglect of duties, and workplace harassment exist on the part of the employee, whether a disciplinary dismissal that also includes, as a ground, treating the period of placement on standby as unauthorized absence constitutes ‘excessive severity of disciplinary measure’ that is manifestly unreasonable by social norms.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case relied on the following: based on the objective evidence and related circumstances, there were grounds for discipline against the employee for violation of company rules and neglect of duties, and for workplace harassment of a fellow employee; however, the part treating the period of placement on standby as unauthorized absence could not be recognized as a ground for discipline. In a situation where only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established, taking into account the degree of the employee’s misconduct and parity in discipline with fellow employees, dismissal was a disposition that was manifestly unreasonable by social norms and constituted an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority. Ultimately, the Commission held that the dismissal was unfair because the severity of dismissal was excessive in light of the established grounds for discipline. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even where some misconduct such as workplace harassment or neglect of duties is established, this does not automatically justify dismissal. Employees should bear in mind that they can contest whether the level of discipline is appropriate in light of the degree of misconduct and parity with other cases. In particular, where the employer aggregates multiple grounds for discipline to impose dismissal, some grounds may not be established due to lack of objective evidence. Accordingly, employees should organize in detail the facts and proof status for each alleged ground and respond before the Labor Relations Commission on that basis. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) When deciding on disciplinary dismissal, employers must carefully determine, in accordance with the standards presented in Supreme Court precedents, whether the employment relationship has become untenable by social norms, taking into comprehensive account the nature and content of the misconduct, its impact on corporate order, the employee’s position and past work attitude, and parity with similar cases. Further, as in the case of treating a period of placement on standby as unauthorized absence, if the employer strains to include grounds that are legally debatable, the overall disciplinary measure may be evaluated as excessively severe. Employers should therefore review in advance, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, the existence of grounds for discipline, supporting evidence, and the criteria for determining the severity of discipline. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which only some of the grounds for discipline were recognized, and the severity of dismissal was found to be excessive. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Whether grounds for discipline existed The employee partially acknowledged fault only with respect to dozing off and being late during working hours among the various acts of misconduct cited by the employer as grounds for discipline, while denying all other alleged misconduct. However, in light of the objective evidence and surrounding circumstances confirmed in the case, there were grounds for discipline against the employee for “violation of company rules and neglect of duties, and workplace harassment of a fellow employee,” whereas treating the period of placement on standby as unauthorized absence could not be recognized as a ground for discipline. b. Appropriateness of the severity of discipline Given that some of the alleged grounds for discipline were not established, and considering the degree of the employee’s misconduct and parity in discipline with fellow employees, the severity of dismissal was excessive in light of the established grounds for discipline. c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure It was confirmed that there were no material procedural defects in the disciplinary procedures conducted against the employee. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Severity of Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Severity of Discipline (Participation in Outsourced Work for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Benefit of Remedy · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive severity of disciplinary measure (workplace harassment · unauthorized absence during placement on standby), disciplinary dismissal, workplace harassment, unauthorized absence, 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 ‘Voluntary Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to excessive severity of disciplinary measure (workplace harassment · unauthorized absence during placement on standby) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Excessive Severity of Disciplinary Measure (Workplace Harassment · Unauthorized Absence During Placement on Standby).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article