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

I. Introduction
On August 18, 2025, a female employee in her late thirties from a remote province visited for consultation regarding a case in which she had reported workplace harassment. At that 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 had joined 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 is newly elected by the board of directors every three years, and rather than appointing a professional manager, prominent local figures have been alternately selected to serve in that position.
In March 2025, the newly appointed representative director (hereinafter, the “Representative”) stated, “When the Representative 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 completed three years of service, to resign. When the employee refused to resign and continued working, the Representative 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 Representative’s continuous harassment, the employee suffered mental distress and was eventually diagnosed at a hospital with panic disorder and depression. Accordingly, she reported the Representative to the Labor Office as the perpetrator of workplace harassment.
In retaliation for the employee’s report against him for workplace harassment, the Representative took retaliatory measures against 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 workplace harassment case filed by the employee resulted in a decision of no charges (non-prosecution), he carried out her disciplinary dismissal.
Although this labor dispute may appear to be an extreme case, it is considered to be a type of case that could commonly occur in ordinary companies. In light of the fact that the Labor Relations Commission resolved the complex and entangled labor dispute through a reasonable solution to the conflict between labor and management, this paper seeks to examine the significance of the role played by the Labor Relations Commission.

II. Details of Workplace Harassment and the Report of Workplace Harassment

1. Details of Workplace Harassment
(1) On March 1, 2025, the employee requested the replacement of her work computer, as it had been outdated for two years and had continuously generated errors. She had made several requests for replacement to both the former representative and the current representative. When she requested repairs for the work computer, she was informed that the hard disk had been damaged and was irrecoverable. Accordingly, the employee replaced the hard disk at a computer repair shop and continued performing her duties. The Representative 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 an instruction from the Representative.
(2) When the employee reported on her work to the newly appointed representative and presented her own opinions, he interpreted her remarks as “expressions of dissatisfaction” or “talking back,” and issued unilateral orders such as “Are you ignoring me?” and “Just do as you are told.” He further stated, “If the commander tells you to do it, you must do it,” thereby imposing a military-style chain of command rather than engaging in rational communication.
(3) The Representative repeatedly stated to the employee, either directly or through third parties, that she “does not listen,” “I can’t work like this,” and “she works as she pleases,” and frequently used expressions such as “Why do we even need a representative?” In certain situations, he used profanity, saying, “Fuck, I can’t do this anymore.”
(4) On May 21, 2025, the Representative convened an extraordinary board meeting and asserted that the employee had arbitrarily replaced the company’s PC hard disk. The board decided to issue a severe warning and to require the submission of a written statement of facts. On June 2, 2025, instead of submitting a document titled “Statement of Facts,” the employee prepared and submitted a document titled “Explanation Letter,” in which she explained the circumstances of the PC hard disk replacement. The Representative treated the submission of an explanation letter, rather than a statement of facts, as an additional ground for disciplinary action.
(5) In March 2025, upon assuming office, the Representative unilaterally installed CCTV cameras in each office and monitored not only the employee but also other employees. The facility manager, who had been a workplace colleague, was unable to endure the Representative’s surveillance and psychological stress and resigned on August 1, 2025.
2.        Report of Workplace Harassment
In July 2025, due to the Representative’s continued verbal abuse, exclusion from duties, and surveillance, the employee experienced severe psychological stress and was diagnosed at a hospital with panic disorder and depression. Believing that it would be difficult to continue her employment without any protective measures, she documented the events that had occurred and filed a report of workplace harassment with the Labor Office. While the workplace harassment report against the Representative 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, 2025, to September 15, 2025.

III. Retaliatory Measures Taken by the Employer in Response to the Employee’s Report of Workplace Harassment

1. The Employer’s Filing of 112 Police Reports Against the Employee
After the employee filed a workplace harassment complaint with the Labor Office, the Representative made three false reports to the police (via 112) against the employee between August and September 2025. All three reports were concluded with decisions of no charges. Within a two-month period, the Representative reported the employee to 112 three times, resulting in police officers being dispatched to the workplace on each occasion. As a result, the employee suffered such severe stress and psychological shock that she was unable to perform her normal duties. All three of the 112 police reports filed by the Representative were ultimately dismissed with findings of no charges. The details of the 112 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 Representative claimed that this constituted “trespass and theft” and reported her to 112, resulting in police dispatch to the scene. The documents the employee took included materials for audit preparation and accounting reports that had to meet specific deadlines, and they were part of her own 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 Representative reported this to 112 under the alleged charge of “unauthorized manipulation of a PC by an outsider,” resulting in police dispatch.
(3) On September 19, 2025, the employee’s work computer login 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 Representative reported this again to 112, alleging that the employee had engaged in “unauthorized viewing of CCTV footage,” and the police were dispatched to the workplace.

2. Initiation of Two Criminal Complaint Cases Against the Employee
In addition to filing 112 police reports, the Representative initiated two formal criminal complaint cases against the employee at the police station. After the first complaint case was concluded with a decision of no charges, the Representative filed a second complaint, adding charges such as defamation. At the time, this second complaint case was still pending. In order to respond to these criminal complaints, the employee hired a lawyer at considerable expense to defend 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 in a state where recovery was impossible. Second, it alleged that during a business trip in December 2024, the employee obtained an additional property benefit of approximately KRW 100,000 through fuel expense usage, thereby causing damage to the company. However, it was confirmed that this additional fuel expense support 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, and it resulted in a decision of no charges.
After the first complaint case was closed with a decision of no charges, the Representative filed a second complaint at the police station in October 2025, adding different charges.
(2) October 2025 Criminal Complaint: The Representative 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 arbitrarily changed a computer password and interfered with business operations. Third, it was alleged that in June 2025, the employee damaged the Representative’s reputation by informing other board members that he had taken the original 2024 financial settlement documents outside the company. Fourth, it was alleged that on September 19, 2025, the employee publicly insulted the Representative by saying, “At 72 years old, is the only thing you can do file a complaint?”
The employee asserts that all of the contents stated in the Representative’s criminal complaints are untrue and false.

3. Disciplinary Dismissal of the Employee
Immediately after the workplace harassment complaint filed by the employee against the Representative with the Labor Office in July 2025 was concluded in early November 2025 with a decision of no charges due to insufficient evidence, the Representative convened a disciplinary committee on November 17, 2025, and dismissed the employee by disciplinary action effective November 22, 2025. Without notifying her of the procedures for filing a request for rehearing regarding disciplinary dismissal as provided in the Rules of Employment, the company effectively decided on immediate dismissal.
The six grounds cited for the disciplinary dismissal are 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 Representative’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 the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The Labor Relations Commission held a hearing on February 3, 2026, and confirmed that the employee’s disciplinary dismissal was unlawful in both its grounds and its procedures. The Labor Relations Commission recommended a settlement, noting that it would be difficult to restore the relationship of trust between labor and management. In response, the employee accepted the proposed settlement on the condition that she receive sufficient financial compensation, be eligible for unemployment benefits, and that the pending criminal complaints be withdrawn. The Representative 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 as follows. 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 qualifies for unemployment benefit eligibility, thereby supporting her in receiving such benefits. Third, upon the 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 agreement. Through this agreement, she gained renewed confidence and was able to overcome her previous 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, making the effectiveness of its remedies strong. In particular, because professionally qualified adjudicators dedicate a full one-hour hearing to a single case, the likelihood of resolving the issues in that case is high. Since labor disputes involve not only legal determinations but also human psychology, resolving labor issues through the Labor Relations Commission has significant advantages compared to litigation. Although the Labor Relations Commission has a structure resembling 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 within six months, including both levels. Therefore, it is considered the most desirable system for providing relief to employees.

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.
This workplace harassment case was not resolved by the Labor Office, nor was a solution found at the police station. However, through the Labor Relations Commission, not only the dismissal case but also the harassment issues, criminal complaints, unemployment benefit issues, and a mutually agreed separation were addressed, resulting in a fundamentally amicable resolution of the conflict between the company and the employee. In this respect, 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.