Retaliation Against an Employee for Reporting Workplace Harassment
Bongsoo Jung (Labor Attorney, KangNam Labor LawFirm)

I. Introduction
On August 18, 2025, a female employee from a remote province and in her late thirties visited for consultation regarding a report she had made of workplace harassment. At the time, the employee stated that, because it was difficult to find employment in that region, she wished to continue working until reaching the mandatory retirement age.
The employee in this case was hired by the company on June 1, 2022, and for the past three years had been the working-level manager in charge of overall human resources and general affairs as well as accounting duties. The employer in this case is a company established as a welfare foundation funded by a large corporation in the region. The company employs 11 workers and operates a welfare center building, including a bathhouse, a fitness center, and various service businesses within the facility. The representative director is newly elected by the board of directors every three years, and rather than appointing a professional manager, prominent local figures have been selected to serve in that position.
In March 2025, the newly appointed representative director (hereinafter, the “Director”) stated, “When the Director changes, all existing employees must leave as well,” and said, “Manager Kim [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Employee’] should also leave. The door is open, so why aren’t you leaving?” Through such remarks, he pressured the Employee, who had then been employed for three years, to resign. When the Employee refused to do so and continued working, the Director sought to force her out by placing her under surveillance, excluding her from work duties, and imposing disciplinary measures, thereby worsening her working environment. As a result of the Director’s continuous harassment, the Employee suffered mental distress and was eventually diagnosed at a hospital with panic disorder and depression. Accordingly, she reported the Director to the Labor Office as the perpetrator of workplace harassment.
In retaliation for the Employee reporting him for workplace harassment, the Director sought to punish her. Specifically, he reported matters arising in the course of her job performance to the police (dialing 112) on three occasions, causing police officers to be dispatched to the workplace. When this did not produce the desired effect, he proceeded to file formal criminal complaints against the Employee at the police station on two separate occasions. Furthermore, immediately after the report of workplace harassment was filed by the Employee was tossed out due to insufficient evidence, he dismissed her for disciplinary reasons.
Although this labor dispute may appear to be an extreme case, it is an example of what could occur anywhere. This paper seeks to examine the significance of the role played by the Labor Relations Commission in sorting through a complex and entangled dispute and reaching a reasonable resolution with the employer and the Employee.

II. Details of the Reported Workplace Harassment

1. Details of the Workplace Harassment
(1) On March 1, 2025, the Employee submitted a request for her work computer to be replaced, as it had been outdated for two years and had continued to generate errors. She made several requests for replacement to both the former representative director and the current one. When she had earlier requested that the work computer be repaired, she was informed that the hard disk had been irrecoverably damaged. Accordingly, the Employee had the hard disk replaced at a computer repair shop and continued performing her duties. The Director took issue with this, stating that he had instructed her not to replace the hard disk, and treated the replacement as grounds for disciplinary action. The Employee stated that she had not heard such instruction from the Director.
(2) When the Employee reported her work to the Representative Director and presented her own views, he interpreted her remarks as “expressions of dissatisfaction” or “talking back,” and made such statements as “Are you ignoring what I’ve said?” and “Just do as you’re told.” He further stated, “If the commander tells you to do it, you must do it,” thereby seeking to impose a military-style chain of command rather than engaging in reasonable discussion.
(3) The Director repeatedly stated to the Employee, either directly or through third parties, that she didn’t listen, that he couldn’t “work like this,” and that “she does whatever she pleases,” and frequently made such exasperated statements like, “Why do we even have a representative director?” In certain situations, he would swear, saying, “F***, I can’t do this anymore.”
(4) On May 21, 2025, the Director convened an extraordinary board meeting and asserted that the Employee had replaced a hard disk for one of the company’s computers without authorization. The board decided to issue a severe warning and to require that the Employee submit a written statement of facts. On June 2, 2025, instead of submitting a document titled “Statement of Facts,” the Employee submitted a document titled “Explanation Letter,” in which she explained the circumstances behind her decision to have the PC hard disk replaced. The Director treated this mistitling of the required “Statement of Facts” as additional grounds for disciplinary action.
(5) In March 2025, upon assuming his position, the Director had CCTV cameras installed in each office and monitored multiple employees, as well as the Employee. The facility manager, who had been working for the company prior to the new Representative Director taking over, was unable to endure the constant surveillance and psychological stress and resigned on August 1, 2025.
2.        Report of Workplace Harassment
In July 2025, due to the Director’s continued verbal abuse, exclusion from duties, and surveillance, the Employee went to a hospital for the severe psychological stress she had been experiencing and was diagnosed with panic disorder and depression. Believing that it would be difficult to continue her employment without protective measures, she documented the events that had occurred and filed a claim of workplace harassment with the Labor Office. While the workplace harassment report against the Director was pending, she determined that it was difficult to continue working face-to-face with him. Accordingly, she submitted a medical opinion letter and took one month of unpaid medical leave from August 14 to September 15, 2025.

III. Retaliatory Actions Taken by the Employer in Response to the Employee Filing a Report of Workplace Harassment

1. The Employer’s Filing of Police Reports Against the Employee
After the Employee filed a workplace harassment complaint with the Labor Office, the Director made three false reports to the police (via 112) against the Employee between August and September 2025. All three reports were concluded with a decision to not lay charges. Within a two-month period, the Director reported the Employee to the police three times, resulting in police officers being dispatched to the workplace on each occasion. These reports were made both before and after the Employee went on medical leave, and she suffered such severe stress and trauma that she was unable to perform her duties normally. The details of the police reports are as follows:
(1) On August 13, 2025, before beginning her medical leave, the Employee came to the office in the evening to collect work materials in order to perform her duties from home. The Director claimed that this constituted “trespass and theft” and reported her to the police, resulting in officers being dispatched to the scene. The documents the Employee took included materials to prepare for an audit and accounting reports that had to meet specific deadlines, and they were part of her assigned duties. Since there was no replacement personnel during her medical leave period, these were tasks that she herself had to handle.
(2) On September 15, 2025, after returning from medical leave, the Employee found that she could not log in to her PC. She contacted the person in charge of computer repairs, and during working hours, computer restoration work was carried out inside the company. The Director reported this to the police, claiming that the Employee was an outsider and had manipulated a company computer without authorization. This again resulted in officers being dispatched to company premises.
(3) On September 19, 2025, the Employee’s work account was suddenly locked and could not be accessed, and she discovered other signs suggesting possible intrusion. As she was at the time responsible for CCTV-related duties, she accessed the CCTV system to ascertain the facts. The Director reported this again to the police, alleging that the Employee had engaged in “unauthorized viewing of CCTV footage,” and again, the police were dispatched to the workplace.

2. Initiation of Two Criminal Complaints Against the Employee
In addition to filing police reports over the phone, the Director initiated two formal criminal complaints, in person, against the Employee. After no charges were filed for the first complaint, the Director filed a second one, adding charges such as defamation. At the time, this second complaint was still pending. In order to respond to these criminal complaints, the Employee hired a defense lawyer at considerable expense to herself.
(1) August 2025 Criminal Complaint: The complaint alleged three criminal acts. First, it claimed that on March 1, 2025, the Employee replaced a malfunctioning PC hard disk, thereby discarding company property and causing damage to the company. However, the PC in question was old and non-functional, and the hard disk was inoperable and the data irrecoverable. Second, it alleged that during a business trip in December 2024, the Employee obtained an additional property benefit, fraudulently, of approximately KRW 100,000 through fuel expenses, thereby causing damage to the company. However, it was confirmed that this fuel allowance of KRW 100,000 had been provided with the consent of the former Representative Director in lieu of other business trip expenses. Third, it alleged that on August 13, 2025, at approximately 19:33, the Employee trespassed into the company office and unlawfully removed company documents. However, this act was for the purpose of handling work from home during her medical leave in order to support audit preparation and related tasks. All three claims resulted in no charges.
After the first complaint was dismissed, the Director filed a second complaint at the police station in October 2025, on different charges.
(2) October 2025 Criminal Complaint: The Director filed charges against the employee including breach of trust in the course of business, defamation by false facts, and insult. First, it was alleged that from the time of the Employee’s hiring until the present, she had been paid KRW 17,432,384 more than the wages specified in her employment contract, thereby causing financial damage to the company. Second, it was alleged that on September 16, 2025, the Employee changed a computer password without authorization and interfered with business operations. Third, it was alleged that in June 2025, the Employee damaged the Director’s reputation by informing other board members that he had taken the original 2024 financial settlement documents off company premises. Fourth, it was alleged that on September 19, 2025, the Employee publicly insulted the Director by saying, “At 72 years of age, the only thing you can do is file a complaint?”
The Employee asserted that all of the details stated in the Director’s criminal complaints were false.

3. Disciplinary Dismissal of the Employee
Immediately after the workplace harassment complaint filed by the Employee against the Director with the Labor Office in July 2025 was concluded in early November 2025 due to insufficient evidence, the Director convened a disciplinary committee meeting on November 17, 2025, and dismissed the Employee for disciplinary reasons, effective November 22, 2025. The company did not notify her of the procedures for filing a request to review the decision to dismiss her, as provided in the Rules of Employment.
The six reasons cited for the disciplinary dismissal were as follows:
First, that she unlawfully removed documents (which had been for the purpose of handling work reports and related tasks during her medical leave). Second, that she improperly claimed fuel expenses (a KRW 100,000 fuel ticket) and misappropriated company funds. Third, that she unlawfully deleted company electronic data during her medical leave. Fourth, that she accessed CCTV footage without approval. Fifth, that she failed to submit a “Statement of Facts” as instructed by the board of directors and instead submitted an “Explanation Letter.” Sixth, that without the Director’s approval, she inserted her personal opinions into board-related materials (dated September 18, 2025) and distributed them to the board members.

IV. The Employee’s Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal and Decision of the Labor Relations Commission
The Labor Relations Commission held a hearing on February 3, 2026, and confirmed that the Employee’s disciplinary dismissal was unlawful in terms of both justification and procedure. The Labor Relations Commission recommended a settlement, noting that it would be difficult to restore the relationship of trust between the Employee and the management. The Employee accepted the idea of a settlement on the condition that she received sufficient financial compensation, be eligible for unemployment benefits, and that the pending criminal complaints be withdrawn. The Director also came to recognize that there was little possibility of prevailing in this case and accepted the settlement proposal presented by the Labor Relations Commission.
The agreed terms were that, first, the Employee would receive six months’ salary based on the actual amount deposited into her account and would submit a mutual separation agreement. Second, in order for the Employee to receive unemployment benefits, the company would issue a certificate of separation stating a reason that qualified her for such benefits. Third, upon establishment of the settlement, the employer in this case would withdraw (cancel) by February 6, 2026 (Friday), all criminal complaints filed against the employee with any investigative agency. Fourth, once the above conditions were fulfilled, the parties would not raise any civil, criminal, administrative, or other claims against each other in relation to the employment relationship or its termination after the settlement was concluded.
The Employee was satisfied with and accepted this settlement. Through it, she gained renewed confidence and was able to recover from panic disorder and depression.
The Labor Relations Commission, as a quasi-judicial body, handles cases such as unfair dismissal and discrimination. One of its advantages is its speed, as it concludes dismissal cases within three months. In addition, no separate litigation costs are required, and it has a system of compulsory performance fines to enforce compliance with its orders, increasing the effectiveness of its remedies. In particular, because professionally qualified adjudicators dedicate a full one-hour hearing to a single case, the likelihood of resolving the issues is high. Since labor disputes involve not only legal determinations but also human psychology, resolving things through the Labor Relations Commission has significant advantages over litigation. Although the Commission has a five-tier system for dismissal cases—consisting of a first instance at the Regional Labor Relations Commission and a second instance at the National Labor Relations Commission—it concludes cases at both levels within six months. Therefore, it is considered the most desirable system for employees to seek remedy.

IV. Implications
This workplace harassment case demonstrates that although a representative director may hold absolute authority within a company, labor law protections can serve as a strong support for employees, producing a positive effect.
The workplace harassment in this case was not resolved by the Labor Office, nor was a solution found at the police station. However, through the Labor Relations Commission, the unfair dismissal, the related harassment issues and criminal complaints and the unemployment benefit uncertainties were addressed, and a separation agreement accepted by both parties. This resulted in a fundamentally amicable resolution of the conflict between the Employee and management. In this regard, the Labor Relations Commission was appropriately utilized as a forum for resolving labor disputes, and it is expected that its role will continue to expand in the future.