[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full in a dispute over “excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · unauthorized absence during suspension from duty).” Adjudicating body: Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해201 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-05 · Case outcome: Fully upheld (employee’s claim) Key issue summary: … While the employee completely denies the other alleged misconduct, in light of the objective evidence confirmed and the surrounding circumstances, there are grounds for discipline against the employee for “violation of company rules and neglect of duties, and workplace harassment of a fellow employee,” and treating the period of suspension from duty as unauthorized absence cannot be recognized as a ground for discipline. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case concerns a disciplinary dismissal imposed on the grounds of violation of company rules, neglect of duties, and workplace harassment of a fellow employee. The Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged part of the alleged misconduct, and examined the application for remedy for unfair dismissal focusing on (i) whether the period of suspension from duty could be regarded as unauthorized absence and thus a ground for discipline, and (ii) whether, in light of all circumstances, dismissal was an appropriate level of disciplinary action. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issues in this case are whether, in a situation where some grounds for discipline such as violation of company rules, neglect of duties, and workplace harassment are recognized, the employer may additionally rely on unauthorized absence during the suspension-from-duty period as a ground for discipline, and whether dismissal is a justified level of disciplinary sanction even after taking all such circumstances into account. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings The adjudicating panel in this case found, in light of the objective evidence confirmed and the relevant circumstances, that there were grounds for discipline against the employee for violation of company rules, neglect of duties, and workplace harassment of a fellow employee. However, it found that the part treating the period of suspension from duty as unauthorized absence could not readily be recognized as a ground for discipline. It further held that, 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, dismissal was excessively severe by social standards, and that no serious procedural defects were found in the disciplinary process itself. The Commission therefore held that, although grounds for discipline existed, the dismissal in this case was unfair because the level of discipline was excessively severe. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that misconduct such as violation of company rules, neglect of duties, and workplace harassment, where supported by objective evidence, will be substantially recognized even before the Labor Relations Commission. However, for a disciplinary dismissal to be justified, there must be reasons serious enough that, by social standards, the employment relationship cannot reasonably be continued. It is therefore important to present and substantiate arguments comprehensively on the degree of misconduct, its repetitiveness, whether any harm has been remedied, and parity with co-workers. In addition, depending on how work was to be provided during the period of suspension from duty or removal from position, what work instructions the company gave, and how attendance obligations were set, the determination of “unauthorized absence” may differ. Accordingly, employees should carefully secure relevant materials such as personnel orders for suspension, notices, and attendance management records for the relevant period. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even where misconduct such as workplace harassment, violation of rules, or neglect of duties is established, it is advisable not to proceed immediately to dismissal. Instead, the level of discipline should be designed after comprehensively considering the degree and repetitiveness of the misconduct, the scope of harm, the employee’s past disciplinary and commendation record, and parity with similar cases. In particular, as Supreme Court precedents assess the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal by asking whether it is “manifestly lacking in reasonableness by social standards,” employers should make sufficient prior use of graduated disciplinary measures (reprimand, pay reduction, suspension, etc.), training, and warning procedures so that the choice of dismissal does not appear to be an excessive exercise of discretion. Employers should also clearly recognize that suspension from duty or removal from position is not a disciplinary measure to punish past misconduct, but a provisional personnel measure to prevent future disruption to business operations. Rather than automatically treating the suspension period as unauthorized absence and using it as a ground for discipline, employers should clearly notify employees of their attendance obligations and the content of any training or work instructions during that period, and arrange their personnel regulations and document management systems so that any non-compliance can be specifically proven. This unfair dismissal precedent illustrates that, even where grounds for discipline exist, if the level of discipline is excessively severe by social standards, the Labor Relations Commission may find the dismissal to be unfair. It is therefore advisable for both employees and employers to review risks in advance with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Adjudicated a. Case Overview and Procedural History … While the employee completely denies the other alleged misconduct, in light of the objective evidence confirmed and the surrounding circumstances, there are grounds for discipline against the employee for “violation of company rules and neglect of duties, and workplace harassment of a fellow employee,” and treating the period of suspension from duty as unauthorized absence cannot be recognized as a ground for discipline. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Given that some of the grounds for discipline are not established, and considering the degree of the employee’s misconduct and parity in discipline with fellow employees, the level of dismissal is excessively severe compared to the grounds for discipline that are recognized. c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure It is confirmed that there were no serious procedural defects in the disciplinary procedures against the employee. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings … While the employee completely denies the other alleged misconduct, in light of the objective evidence confirmed and the surrounding circumstances, there are grounds for discipline against the employee for “violation of company rules and neglect of duties, and workplace harassment of a fellow employee,” and treating the period of suspension from duty as unauthorized absence cannot be recognized as a ground for discipline. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Given that some of the grounds for discipline are not established, and considering the degree of the employee’s misconduct and parity in discipline with fellow employees, the level of dismissal is excessively severe compared to the grounds for discipline that are recognized. c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure It is confirmed that there were no serious procedural defects in the disciplinary procedures against the employee. / [See More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Related to ‘Voluntary Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Related to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · unauthorized absence during suspension from duty), 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Related to ‘Voluntary Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of precedents related to excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · unauthorized absence during suspension from duty) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Related to Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment · Unauthorized Absence During Suspension from Duty).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article