[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “propriety of the level of discipline (comparison with discipline imposed on perpetrators in a workplace harassment case).” Decision date: 2026-08-04 · Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae2124 Key issues summary: A. Whether grounds for discipline existed: The employee spread unfounded rumors about a colleague, disparaged the legitimate work instructions of a superior in front of team members, in fact delayed and failed to perform work, and left the workplace for long periods during working hours. These acts were recognized as grounds for discipline. B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate: The employee argued that, as a victim of workplace harassment, only he/she was subjected to severe discipline, which was excessive compared to the discipline imposed on the perpetrator… 1. Legal Implications This article examines a case before the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission in which the existence of unfair dismissal was at issue, focusing on how the Labor Relations Commission assesses the legitimacy of the grounds, level, and procedure of disciplinary action. With reference to the Commission’s decision and the questions frequently raised in actual consultations handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, this article summarizes key points to be noted when workplace harassment and disciplinary measures intersect. Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee claimed to be a victim of workplace harassment and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the three-week suspension imposed constituted unfair dismissal. The employer imposed discipline on the grounds of spreading rumors about a colleague, failing to comply with and disparaging a superior’s legitimate work instructions, repeatedly delaying and failing to perform work, and leaving the workplace for extended periods during working hours. Even after reducing the initial one-month suspension to three weeks in the reconsideration process, the employer continued to argue that the disciplinary action was justified. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is whether, with respect to the suspension imposed on an employee claiming to be a victim of workplace harassment, all of the following are satisfied so that the measure does not constitute unfair dismissal: (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) compliance with the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the work rules. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that, as the employer asserted, the employee’s conduct—spreading unfounded rumors about a colleague, publicly disparaging a superior’s legitimate work instructions and in fact repeatedly delaying and failing to perform work, and leaving the workplace for long periods during working hours—constituted neglect of duty and disruption of workplace order, which are disciplinary grounds under the work rules. Although the employee argued that, despite being a victim of workplace harassment, only he/she was subjected to severe discipline, which was harsher than that imposed on the perpetrator, the Commission took into account that: the company had previously imposed disciplinary dismissal for similar neglect of duty and disruption of workplace order; the suspension was reduced from one month to three weeks upon reconsideration; the employee showed no remorse for his/her misconduct; and it was difficult to view the workplace harassment as being directly related to the grounds for discipline in this case. In light of these factors, the Commission held that the three-week suspension was not so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to constitute an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline. The Commission also confirmed that the company had complied with all prescribed disciplinary procedures set forth in its work rules, including convening the disciplinary committee, deliberation, and notification, and therefore found no procedural defect separate from the existence of disciplinary grounds. Ultimately, the Commission held that the grounds, level, and procedure of the disciplinary action were all legitimate and therefore determined that the dismissal in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, even if one claims to be a victim of workplace harassment, separate acts that disrupt corporate order—such as neglect of duty, refusal to comply with a superior’s work instructions, spreading rumors about colleagues, and unauthorized absence from the workplace—may constitute legitimate grounds for discipline. In particular, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts assess whether the level of discipline is clearly unreasonable in light of social norms, taking into account the company’s disciplinary standards and past precedents, as well as the employee’s remorse and efforts at improvement. Where a dispute is anticipated, it is necessary to objectively organize and preserve materials concerning the circumstances of one’s conduct, efforts at improvement, and expressions of remorse. Furthermore, when raising issues based on workplace harassment, it is important to ensure that one’s own work attitude and performance do not suffer, independent of the harassment itself. If, in the course of reporting harassment, one responds by emotionally slandering colleagues or superiors or by outright refusing work instructions, there is a high likelihood that such conduct will later be recognized as grounds for discipline. This should be clearly borne in mind. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, for disciplinary action to be upheld as legitimate, it is necessary to systematically establish: first, whether the misconduct in question falls within the disciplinary grounds specified in the work rules and disciplinary regulations; second, whether the prescribed disciplinary procedures—such as the composition, convening, and resolution of the disciplinary committee—have been strictly observed; and third, whether, in light of the company’s disciplinary standards and past cases, the level of discipline is not excessively severe. Especially in cases where discipline is linked to workplace harassment incidents, it is important to clearly distinguish and record which acts, separate from the harassment itself, constitute grounds for discipline and whether there is a causal relationship between the harassment and those acts, so as to facilitate defense in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute. It is also important to document what disciplinary measures the employer has imposed in similar past cases, the extent to which the employer has made adjustments favorable to the employee through reconsideration or mitigation procedures, and the employer’s comprehensive review of the employee’s remorse and work attitude. To ensure that the disciplinary measure is not evaluated as clearly unreasonable in light of social norms, employers should establish standards for determining the level of discipline in advance and, in each case, consult with HR and labor experts (e.g., labor attorneys at Labor Law Firm Law&) to assess the associated risks. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was held that the grounds, level, and procedure of the disciplinary action were all legitimate. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether grounds for discipline existed The employee spread unfounded rumors about a colleague, disparaged a superior’s legitimate work instructions in front of team members, in fact delayed and failed to perform work, and left the workplace for long periods during working hours. These acts were recognized as grounds for discipline. B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate The employee argued that, as a victim of workplace harassment, only he/she was subjected to severe discipline, which was excessive compared to the discipline imposed on the perpetrator. However, in light of: (1) the fact that the company had previously imposed disciplinary dismissal for neglect of duty and disruption of workplace order similar to the grounds for discipline in this case; (2) the fact that, upon the employee’s application for reconsideration, the one-month suspension was reduced to three weeks; (3) the fact that the employee showed no remorse regarding the grounds for discipline; and (4) the fact that it was difficult to view the workplace harassment as being directly related to the grounds for discipline in this case, the Commission determined that the three-week suspension was not so clearly unreasonable in light of social norms as to fall outside the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority. C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful The company complied with all disciplinary procedures prescribed in its work rules, and no procedural defects were identified. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Propriety of Level of Discipline (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Level of Discipline (Negligent Management/Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, level of discipline (comparison with discipline of workplace harassment victim), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · noncompliance 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&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Hiring Commitment (City Gas Safety Manager)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to the “level of discipline (comparison with discipline of workplace harassment victim)” can be viewed in the “List of Decisions on Level of Discipline (Comparison with Discipline of Workplace Harassment Victim)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article