[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary action and transfer (separation measures for a workplace harassment perpetrator).” Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae293 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-08 · Case outcome: Dismissed Key issue summary: a. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer imposed both a one‑month pay reduction and a transfer (change of worksite) on an employee whose workplace harassment was found to be established. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that these measures constituted an unfair personnel action equivalent to unfair dismissal. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of the disciplinary action and the transfer based on the workplace harassment investigation report and the statements of related parties, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application for remedy. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where workplace harassment has been established, the imposition on the perpetrating employee of a pay reduction as disciplinary action together with a transfer for the purpose of separating the employee from the victim is justified in terms of: (i) the grounds, procedure, and severity of the disciplinary action, and (ii) the business necessity of the transfer and the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s daily life. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel found, in light of the specific statements of the complainant and witnesses and the contents of the workplace harassment investigation report, that the workplace harassment was established; that the nature and degree of the misconduct could be evaluated as serious, so that a one‑month pay reduction (30,000 KRW) imposed in accordance with the disciplinary scale under the personnel regulations could not be considered excessive; and that the disciplinary procedure was conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in the personnel regulations, with no separate procedural defects apparent. On this basis, the panel held that the disciplinary action was justified. In addition, the panel found that the employee’s misconduct constituted workplace harassment, creating a need to separate the employee from the victim in order to protect the victim and maintain organizational order; that the economic and daily‑life disadvantages arising for the employee after the transfer could not be viewed as significantly exceeding the level that an ordinary worker is expected to bear; and that the transfer did not constitute a new disciplinary action but rather an adjustment of personnel placement as a follow‑up measure to the harassment. Taking all of this into account, the panel held that the transfer was also a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, if workplace harassment is specifically established through an investigation report and witness statements, personnel measures such as a pay reduction and transfer are highly likely to be found justified by the Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, where there is a dispute over the facts, it is important to respond from the initial investigation stage by systematically organizing your statements, supporting materials, and evidence substantiating the circumstances at the time. Furthermore, even where a transfer is involved, if wages and benefits are essentially maintained and the new worksite is not at such a distance as to make commuting impossible or otherwise cause excessive disadvantages in daily life, a claim of unfair dismissal or unfair personnel action is unlikely to be accepted solely on the basis that it is an “undesired department transfer.” Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s side, when imposing both disciplinary action and a transfer on an employee identified as a perpetrator in a workplace harassment case, the core points are to ensure the fairness of the investigation procedure (securing statements from the parties and witnesses, preparing an investigation report) and to keep clear records of the grounds for both the disciplinary action and the transfer. In particular, the level of discipline should conform to the standards set out in the personnel regulations and rules of employment, and, with respect to the transfer, the documentation should reflect consideration of both the business necessity (protection of the victim and restoration of organizational order) and the degree of disadvantage to the employee’s daily life. In addition, where both a pay reduction and a transfer are used in response to the same workplace harassment incident, it is important to make clear in the regulations and documentation that the transfer is not an additional disciplinary measure but a personnel measure aimed at separating the victim and preventing recurrence, and to structure it so that any deterioration in wages and working conditions is minimized. This will help reduce disputes over abuse or excess of disciplinary discretion. Cases in which both disciplinary action and transfer become issues in the context of workplace harassment are steadily increasing. It is therefore highly beneficial for both employees and employers to accurately understand the standards applied by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, and to seek advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the preliminary stages in order to organize procedures and evidence and thereby prevent disputes. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History a. Legitimacy of the Disciplinary Action In light of the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the workplace harassment investigation report, the grounds for discipline based on workplace harassment are established, and those grounds are sufficient to be regarded as serious misconduct. Accordingly, the one‑month pay reduction (30,000 KRW) imposed in accordance with the disciplinary scale is appropriate. The disciplinary procedure appears to have been carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the personnel regulations, and there are no other defects. Taken together, the disciplinary action is justified. b. Legitimacy of the Transfer Since the applicant’s misconduct constitutes workplace harassment and thus makes separation from the victimized employee necessary, business necessity is recognized, and the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life arising from the transfer are not… 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Legitimacy of the Disciplinary Action In light of the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the workplace harassment investigation report, the grounds for discipline based on workplace harassment are established, and those grounds are sufficient to be regarded as serious misconduct. Accordingly, the one‑month pay reduction (30,000 KRW) imposed in accordance with the disciplinary scale is appropriate. The disciplinary procedure appears to have been carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the personnel regulations, and there are no other defects. Taken together, the disciplinary action is justified. b. Legitimacy of the Transfer Since the applicant’s misconduct constitutes workplace harassment and thus makes separation from the victimized employee necessary, business necessity is recognized, and the disadvantages to the employee’s daily life arising from the transfer are not… / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Defect in Written Notice (Expiry of Probationary Period)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary action and transfer (separation measures for workplace harassment perpetrator), workplace harassment, disciplinary dismissal, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Voluntary Resignation Letter)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary action and transfer (separation measures for workplace harassment perpetrator) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Action and Transfer (Separation Measures for Workplace Harassment Perpetrator).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article