[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (repeated verbal abuse and family denigration).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1971 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-29 · Case result: Dismissed Key issue summary: a. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer imposed a disciplinary suspension of three days on an employee on the grounds that the employee repeatedly used abusive language toward a colleague and made denigrating remarks about the colleague’s family. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this constituted an unfair disciplinary action equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on the existence of just cause for discipline and the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy on the basis that the employer’s disciplinary action was justified. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are: (i) whether repeated verbal abuse and denigrating remarks about a colleague’s family in the workplace constitute just cause for discipline, and (ii) whether the disciplinary measure of “three days’ suspension” is so excessively severe by social standards as to amount to an unfair disciplinary action equivalent to unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case found that the verbal abuse and family-denigrating remarks asserted by the employer as grounds for discipline were confirmed by objective evidence such as audio recordings, and that the employee also admitted to having used abusive language. Considering that the level of the remarks seriously exceeded the range acceptable under social norms and that such remarks were made repeatedly, the panel held that there was just cause for discipline. In addition, the panel noted that the employee showed no attitude of remorse or repentance, that although a suspension of up to three months was possible the employer chose only the lightest level of suspension—“three days’ suspension”—in consideration of the operational circumstances of the workplace, and that, while the determination of the level of discipline is in principle within the employer’s discretion, in this case the disciplinary severity could not be regarded as markedly excessive by social standards. Taking these factors together, the panel held that this dismissal measure did not constitute an abuse of disciplinary authority and determined that it was not unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it should be borne in mind that verbal abuse in the workplace—particularly remarks that denigrate a colleague’s family and attack personal dignity—can constitute serious grounds for discipline that significantly undermine corporate order, and are not merely expressions of emotion. Where repeated verbal abuse has occurred in circumstances in which objective evidence such as recordings or text messages exists, it may be more realistic and advantageous to focus on prompt apology, making amends to the victim, and efforts to prevent recurrence in order to mitigate the level of discipline, rather than attempting to overturn the disciplinary action itself. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to clearly set out in the rules of employment the grounds for discipline and the types of disciplinary measures in relation to acts that infringe personal dignity, such as verbal abuse and insults, and, when an incident actually occurs, to secure sufficient evidence such as audio recordings and written statements before commencing disciplinary procedures. Furthermore, when determining the level of discipline—such as the length of suspension or whether to impose a pay cut—it is important to systematically record the nature and frequency of the conduct, the extent of harm, whether the employee has shown remorse, and the impact on workplace order, so that the employer can substantiate before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts that there was no abuse of disciplinary authority. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Determined a. Case Overview and Procedural History a. Legitimacy of the Grounds for Discipline The verbal abuse and family-denigrating remarks toward the complainant that the employer relied on as grounds for discipline are sufficiently confirmed by audio recordings and other evidence, and the employee also admits to having used abusive language. Taken together, the grounds for discipline are legitimate. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline ① The employee’s verbal abuse and related conduct toward the complainant occurred repeatedly and continuously, and seriously exceeded the range acceptable under social norms; ② the employee appears to show no remorse or repentance; ③ although a suspension of up to three months was possible, the employer decided on a “three-day suspension” in light of the fact that the employee needed to lead the workplace… 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Legitimacy of the Grounds for Discipline The verbal abuse and family-denigrating remarks toward the complainant that the employer relied on as grounds for discipline are sufficiently confirmed by audio recordings and other evidence, and the employee also admits to having used abusive language. Taken together, the grounds for discipline are legitimate. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline ① The employee’s verbal abuse and related conduct toward the complainant occurred repeatedly and continuously, and seriously exceeded the range acceptable under social norms; ② the employee appears to show no remorse or repentance; ③ although a suspension of up to three months was possible, the employer decided on a “three-day suspension” in light of the fact that the employee needed to lead the workplace… / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Existence of Expectation of Contract Renewal (No Repeated Renewals)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (repeated verbal abuse and family denigration), workplace bullying, 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Existence of Expectation of Contract Renewal (No Repeated Renewals),” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (repeated verbal abuse and family denigration) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Verbal Abuse and Family Denigration).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article