[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (comparison with disciplining a workplace harassment victim).” Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae2124 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-04 · Case result: Dismissed Key issue summary: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, both the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal and the appropriateness of the level of discipline (disciplinary severity) were at issue before the Labor Relations Commission. It is similar to cases frequently handled by Labor Law Firm Law&. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission held hearings on an application for remedy filed by an employee who had been dismissed for cause, based on allegations of spreading rumors about a colleague, disparaging a superior’s work instructions, delaying or failing to perform work, and leaving the workplace for an extended period during working hours. The employee argued that, although she was a victim of workplace harassment, the company imposed a far more severe disciplinary measure on her than on the perpetrator, and that this amounted to unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the grounds for discipline existed and whether the level of discipline had clearly lost its validity under generally accepted social norms. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Where an employee claiming to be a victim of workplace harassment is found to have engaged in conduct such as spreading rumors about colleagues, disparaging a superior’s work instructions, repeatedly delaying or failing to perform work, and leaving the workplace, does disciplinary dismissal for such conduct constitute unfair dismissal? In particular, does the difference in the level of discipline imposed on the employee and on the person identified as the perpetrator amount to a violation of fairness in disciplinary severity?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning In light of the evidence submitted by the employer, the decision panel found that the employee had spread unfounded rumors about a colleague, publicly disparaged a superior’s legitimate work orders in front of team members, repeatedly delayed or failed to perform assigned work, and left the workplace for an extended period during working hours. The panel determined that such conduct constituted a breach of the duty to provide labor and the duty of good faith, and that it amounted to misconduct disturbing workplace order, thereby constituting grounds for discipline. In addition, the panel noted that the company had previously imposed disciplinary dismissal for similar acts of neglect of duty and disruption of workplace order, that the standards for determining disciplinary severity did not appear to target any specific employee, and that the difference in the level of discipline between the employee and the other staff member identified as the perpetrator was not, in light of generally accepted social norms, so unreasonable as to be unacceptable. Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case, both in terms of the grounds and the level of discipline, fell within the employer’s discretionary authority, and that it was difficult to view the employer as having abused its discretion to the extent of constituting unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even if an employee is in a situation where they are complaining of workplace harassment, they must keep in mind that conduct such as spreading unfounded rumors about colleagues, publicly disparaging a superior’s legitimate work instructions, intentionally delaying or failing to perform work, and repeatedly leaving the workplace can each constitute independent grounds for discipline. In particular, the Labor Relations Commission tends to focus less on “who was at fault first” and more on whether the individual employee’s misconduct falls within the grounds for discipline under the rules of employment, and whether the seriousness of that misconduct is sufficient to justify dismissal. Therefore, when seeking to resolve workplace harassment issues, it is important to utilize the company’s procedures (reporting, requesting an investigation, etc.) while managing one’s own behavior so as not to repeatedly engage in words or actions that could be viewed as disrupting workplace order. Where discipline is anticipated, employees should systematically prepare materials capable of proving the specific circumstances of their conduct, the legitimacy or otherwise of the work instructions, and any efforts made to improve their behavior. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) When imposing severe disciplinary measures, including disciplinary dismissal, the company should clearly stipulate the grounds for discipline in its rules of employment and other internal regulations, and secure objective evidence to prove the facts underlying each ground, such as spreading rumors, non-compliance with work instructions, neglect of duty, and leaving the workplace. With respect to disciplinary severity, the company should establish standards that comprehensively take into account the level of discipline imposed in past similar cases, the nature of the duties involved, the impact on corporate order, and whether any harm has been remedied, and should apply those standards consistently in actual cases. Especially in cases where workplace harassment issues coexist, the company must clearly document what facts are recognized with respect to each of the individuals identified as victim and perpetrator, on what legal grounds, through what procedures, and what disciplinary measures were taken. Only with such preparation can the company obtain recognition from the Labor Relations Commission as to the existence of grounds for discipline and the fairness of disciplinary severity, thereby preventing or defending against unfair dismissal disputes. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.) 2. Matters Decided (a) Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Whether grounds for discipline existed The employee’s conduct in spreading unfounded rumors about a fellow employee, disparaging a superior’s legitimate work instructions in front of team members, actually engaging in delays and failures in performing work, and leaving the workplace for an extended period during working hours was recognized as constituting grounds for discipline. (b) Whether the level of discipline was appropriate The employee argued that, as the victim of workplace harassment, only she was subjected to severe discipline and that the discipline imposed on her was excessively harsh compared to that imposed on the perpetrator. However, (i) the company had a history of imposing disciplinary dismissal for neglect of duty and disruption of workplace order similar to the grounds for discipline in this case; (ii) the employee’s re… 3. Summary of the Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (a) Whether grounds for discipline existed The employee’s conduct in spreading unfounded rumors about a fellow employee, disparaging a superior’s legitimate work instructions in front of team members, actually engaging in delays and failures in performing work, and leaving the workplace for an extended period during working hours was recognized as constituting grounds for discipline. (b) Whether the level of discipline was appropriate The employee argued that, as the victim of workplace harassment, only she was subjected to severe discipline and that the discipline imposed on her was excessively harsh compared to that imposed on the perpetrator. However, (i) the company had a history of imposing disciplinary dismissal for neglect of duty and disruption of workplace order similar to the grounds for discipline in this case; (ii) the employee’s re… / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed - “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (comparison with disciplining workplace harassment victim), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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, “‘Existence of Hiring Commitment (City Gas Safety Manager)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (comparison with disciplining workplace harassment victim) in the “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Comparison with Disciplining Workplace Harassment Victim).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article