[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the initial decision was upheld at the Central Labor Relations Commission on the issue of “disciplinary severity (workplace bullying and sexual harassment).” Adjudicating Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae483 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-04 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld Summary of Key Issues: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case before the Central Labor Relations Commission, the worker claimed unfair dismissal and applied for relief to the Labor Relations Commission. However, the disciplinary dismissal based on workplace bullying and sexual harassment was found to be justified, and the initial decision was upheld. The employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on the grounds that a worker in a higher position within the company had repeatedly made inappropriate remarks to lower-ranking victimized workers, thereby worsening their working environment. The worker contested this as an unfair dismissal. The progress of this case illustrates that, in this type of dispute, the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& can be crucial. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are whether the remarks made by the higher-ranking worker to the lower-ranking victimized workers constituted workplace bullying and sexual harassment, and whether imposing the most severe disciplinary measure—disciplinary dismissal—for such misconduct amounted to an unfair dismissal that is, in light of social norms, manifestly lacking in reasonableness. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The adjudicatory panel in this case found that the remarks made by the worker to Victim Workers 1 and 2 went beyond the socially accepted scope of work-related conduct and, judged according to the sound common sense and experience of ordinary people, constituted workplace bullying and sexual harassment that caused sexual discomfort. It further found that the worker, who held a higher position in the company, had caused physical and mental suffering to the lower-ranking victimized workers and had resulted in a deterioration of their working environment, and that the worker had even engaged in conduct that went beyond the exercise of the right of defense and served to discourage the victimized workers from reporting the incidents. In light of these factors, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was based on valid grounds for discipline and that, with respect to the severity of the sanction, it was difficult to regard the measure as, in light of the standards presented in Supreme Court precedents on sexual harassment cases, manifestly lacking in reasonableness according to social norms. Accordingly, it ruled that the dismissal did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s perspective, it should be noted that remarks amounting to workplace bullying and sexual harassment are not easily dismissed as mere jokes or momentary emotional expressions. In particular, where such remarks are repeated in a superior–subordinate relationship or cause the victim’s suffering or deterioration of the working environment, even disciplinary dismissal may be justified. It should also be remembered that, after a victim files a report, conduct that criticizes the victim or discourages reporting may be evaluated as secondary victimization that goes beyond the scope of exercising the right of defense, and this can be a factor that justifies a more severe disciplinary measure. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the grounds for discipline and the standards for determining disciplinary severity in relation to workplace bullying and sexual harassment, and to specify preventive training as well as reporting and investigation procedures. In determining whether disciplinary dismissal constitutes a serious reason that, according to social norms, makes it impossible to continue the employment relationship, employers should comprehensively examine the actor’s rank and position, the repetitiveness of the conduct, the degree of harm, and the impact on corporate order. They should also consider consistency with similar cases in order to reduce disputes over abuse of discretion. 2. Matters Adjudicated (a) Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Existence of Grounds for Discipline The remarks made by the worker to Victim Workers 1 and 2 went beyond the socially accepted scope of work-related conduct and, judged according to the sound common sense and experience of ordinary people, were all recognized as workplace bullying and sexual harassment that caused sexual discomfort. Accordingly, they constituted legitimate grounds for discipline. (b) Appropriateness of the Disciplinary Severity The worker, who held a higher position in the company, caused physical and mental suffering or a deterioration of the working environment to lower-ranking Victim Workers 1 and 2, and both the workplace bullying and the sexual harassment were recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline. Furthermore, the worker went beyond the scope of exercising the right of defense and discouraged the victimized workers from reporting the incidents… 3. Summary of the Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings (a) Existence of Grounds for Discipline The remarks made by the worker to Victim Workers 1 and 2 went beyond the socially accepted scope of work-related conduct and, judged according to the sound common sense and experience of ordinary people, were all recognized as workplace bullying and sexual harassment that caused sexual discomfort. Accordingly, they constituted legitimate grounds for discipline. (b) Appropriateness of the Disciplinary Severity The worker, who held a higher position in the company, caused physical and mental suffering or a deterioration of the working environment to lower-ranking Victim Workers 1 and 2, and both the workplace bullying and the sexual harassment were recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline. Furthermore, the worker went beyond the scope of exercising the right of defense and discouraged the victimized workers from reporting the incidents… / [More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Agreement on Contract Term (Signature on Third Employment Contract)’” - “‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissal [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (workplace bullying and sexual harassment), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Agreement on Contract Term (Signature on Third Employment Contract)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (workplace bullying and sexual harassment) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Bullying and Sexual Harassment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article