[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · change to allowance).” Date of Decision: 2026-07-31 · Decision-Making Body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae718 Key Issue Summary: A. Existence of grounds for discipline 1) With respect to Ground for Discipline 1, it was acknowledged that, as a team leader of the company, the employee was in a superior position in terms of rank vis-à-vis the person who reported workplace harassment, and the employee’s series of acts appear to have been inappropriately carried out on the basis of that position. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a severe disciplinary measure was imposed on a team-leader-level employee on the grounds of inappropriate remarks and conduct related to workplace harassment, and misconduct consisting of partial involvement in changing the method of paying an adjustment allowance. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and the Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision on the unfair dismissal claim. The Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of the grounds for discipline themselves, but focused its review on whether the level of discipline was excessive in light of the degree of the misconduct. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “When a team leader has engaged in inappropriate conduct that may constitute workplace harassment and has partially participated in misconduct relating to a change in the method of paying an adjustment allowance, can such grounds alone justify, under social norms, the imposition of a severe disciplinary measure (such as disciplinary dismissal)? In other words, is the level of discipline excessively harsh so as to fall outside the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority?” Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case held that the following could be regarded as grounds for discipline: (i) the fact that the employee, as a team leader in a superior rank, engaged in inappropriate conduct toward the person who reported workplace harassment by taking advantage of that position; and (ii) the fact that the employee partially participated in misconduct by becoming involved in changing the adjustment allowance from being paid for three years to being paid for the entire period of service. However, in light of the circumstances in which each act of misconduct occurred, the degree of involvement of other related persons within the company, and deficiencies in the organization’s management and supervision system, it was difficult to attribute full responsibility solely to the employee. Taking into account that the disciplinary measure appeared, under social norms, to be an excessively heavy sanction that was disproportionate to the nature and degree of the misconduct, the Commission found that, notwithstanding the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of discipline constituted an abuse of discretionary authority. The dismissal in this case was therefore held to be unfair on the basis that, although grounds for discipline existed, the disciplinary severity was excessive. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that remarks and conduct related to workplace harassment, and involvement in changes to the remuneration structure such as allowances and performance bonuses, may be recognized as grounds for discipline. However, if the level of discipline is markedly excessive under social norms, relief may be obtained by filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. It is therefore important to provide concrete explanations regarding the actual nature and degree of the misconduct, organizational practices, and the roles of other related persons. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary, in handling workplace harassment cases and in the process of changing wage and allowance systems, to clarify the decision-making structure and approval procedures, and to objectively identify the parties responsible. In exercising disciplinary authority, the employer must determine the level of discipline in a manner that is balanced under social norms, taking into account the employee’s position, the motives and circumstances of the misconduct, and the impact on corporate order. Employers should be aware that excessive discipline imposed without regard to consistency with similar cases may be found to constitute unfair dismissal by the Labor Relations Commission. This decision once again confirms that, in unfair dismissal disputes, the appropriateness of the level of discipline is an independent subject of review, separate from the existence of grounds for discipline. From the pre-disciplinary stage, it is advisable to manage risk by obtaining advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, working together with experts who are thoroughly familiar with the practice of the Labor Relations Commission and relevant case law principles. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the grounds for discipline were acknowledged, but the dismissal was found to be unfair on the basis that the level of discipline was excessively severe. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline 1) With respect to Ground for Discipline 1, it was acknowledged that, as a team leader of the company, the employee was in a superior position in terms of rank vis-à-vis the person who reported workplace harassment, and the employee’s series of acts appear to have been inappropriately carried out on the basis of that position. 2) With respect to Ground for Discipline 2, it was acknowledged that the employee partially participated in misconduct by, after having agreed at the time of hiring to receive the adjustment allowance for three years, reporting to the newly appointed representative director and becoming involved in changing the arrangement so that the allowance would be paid for the entire period of service. B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline With respect to each ground for discipline, it is difficult to hold only the employee in this case solely responsible for their occurrence. Accordingly, the level of discipline is deemed to be an excessively heavy sanction that is out of balance with the degree of the misconduct. [See More Related Decisions] - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · change to allowance), disciplinary dismissal, workplace harassment, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work orders, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Denial of Employee Status (CFO Managing Director)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · change to allowance) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment · Change to Allowance).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article