[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full (all claims upheld) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · change in allowance).” Decision body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission Case No. 2026부해718 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-07-31 · Outcome: All claims upheld Summary of key issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline (1) With respect to Ground for Discipline 1, it was acknowledged that the employee, as a team leader of the company, was in a position of hierarchical superiority over the person who reported workplace harassment, and the employee’s series of acts appear to have been carried out inappropriately on the basis of that position. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, an employee who held the position of team leader was subjected to disciplinary dismissal on the grounds that he had engaged in inappropriate remarks and conduct toward a workplace harassment complainant, and that he had been partially involved in the process of changing an agreement on an adjustment allowance so that it would be paid for the employee’s entire period of service rather than for a limited period. The employee then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of the grounds for discipline themselves, but focused its review of whether the dismissal was unfair on whether the level of discipline (dismissal) was excessively severe by social standards. After such review, it rendered a decision fully upholding the employee’s application, and accordingly it can be viewed that the employee’s remedy was likely granted in full. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “In a situation where misconduct is acknowledged in the form of inappropriate remarks and conduct related to workplace harassment and partial involvement in changing an agreement on allowance payments, is the level of discipline—namely, disciplinary dismissal, the most severe measure—justified?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline, including: the fact that the employee, as a team leader, engaged in inappropriate conduct by exploiting his hierarchical superiority over the workplace harassment complainant, and the fact that he was partially involved in the misconduct of changing an agreement to pay an adjustment allowance for three years so that it would instead be paid for the entire period of service. However, it held that even where multiple acts of misconduct exist, disciplinary dismissal is permissible only where, by social standards, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. It further found that there were circumstances making it difficult to place full responsibility for each act of misconduct solely on this employee; and that, taking into account various factors such as the impact on corporate order, the employee’s position and work history, there was room to achieve the intended purpose with a sanction less severe than dismissal. In light of these considerations, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case constituted an abuse of the employer’s discretion in imposing discipline and was therefore unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that where one is even partially involved in issues relating to workplace harassment or misconduct concerning wages/allowances, the existence of grounds for discipline itself can be easily acknowledged. However, even if grounds for discipline exist, for the matter to escalate to dismissal, the key question is whether, after comprehensively considering factors such as the nature and degree of the misconduct, its impact on the company, the likelihood of recurrence, and past work attitude, it can be said by social standards that continuation of the employment relationship is impossible. Accordingly, when filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, it is important to specifically substantiate one’s role and degree of involvement, the surrounding allocation of responsibility, and efforts to remedy any harm. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, while issues of workplace harassment and misconduct relating to wages/allowances should be treated with utmost seriousness, it must be clearly recognized that the mere existence of multiple grounds for discipline does not automatically justify dismissal. To have the appropriateness of the level of discipline upheld, it is advisable to objectively examine the motive and background of each act of misconduct, the company’s management and supervision systems, the responsibility of other involved parties, and whether any harm has been remedied, and to keep a careful record of any comparison and review as to whether corporate order can be maintained with a sanction less severe than dismissal. For both employees and employers in this type of case, what is important is that not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the appropriateness of the level of discipline is subject to separate review. It is necessary to refine work rules and disciplinary regulations in advance and, in the event of a dispute, to systematically organize the facts in line with the relevant legal principles, with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Determined A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline (1) With respect to Ground for Discipline 1, it was acknowledged that the employee, as a team leader of the company, was in a position of hierarchical superiority over the workplace harassment complainant, and the employee’s series of acts appear to have been carried out inappropriately on the basis of that position. (2) With respect to Ground for Discipline 2, it was acknowledged that the employee was partially involved in the misconduct of changing an agreement—under which he was to receive an adjustment allowance for three years, as agreed at the time of hiring—by reporting to the newly appointed CEO so that the allowance would instead 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 place full responsibility for their occurrence solely on the employee in this case… 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline (1) With respect to Ground for Discipline 1, it was acknowledged that the employee, as a team leader of the company, was in a position of hierarchical superiority over the workplace harassment complainant, and the employee’s series of acts appear to have been carried out inappropriately on the basis of that position. (2) With respect to Ground for Discipline 2, it was acknowledged that the employee was partially involved in the misconduct of changing an agreement—under which he was to receive an adjustment allowance for three years, as agreed at the time of hiring—by reporting to the newly appointed CEO so that the allowance would instead 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 place full responsibility for their occurrence solely on the employee in this case… [See More Related Decisions] - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘No Formation of Employment Contract (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case No.: Initial decision upheld - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Denial of Employee Status (CFO Managing Director)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · change in allowance), disciplinary dismissal, workplace harassment, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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 Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Denial of Employee Status (CFO Managing Director)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to excessive disciplinary severity (workplace harassment · change in allowance) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Harassment · Change in Allowance).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article