Recently in a case where supervisors were dismissed for openly reprimanding or ignoring their subordinate with words and actions, and spreading groundless rumors about the subordinate’s private life to disparage him, the Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was valid. In the above case, the supervisors, who were subject to a disciplinary action, said to their subordinate who was newly assigned to the department, “You have no work skills and do not understand your job,” and spread groundless rumors about the subordinate’s private life. Nevertheless, the Daejeon High Court ruled that (i) the supervisors’ act of advising as seniors within the same department cannot be a reason for disciplinary action, and (ii) written notice to the supervisors by the employer regarding their appearance for a Disciplinary Action Committee (“DAC”) meeting was overly broad as to the allegations and thus such procedural defect violated the employer’s regulation on disciplinary procedures.
Kim & Chang, as counsel for the employer, argued before the Supreme Court that (i) what kind of misconduct of an employee constitutes a reason for a disciplinary action should be judged by reasonably interpreting the objective meaning of the relevant provisions on reasons for a disciplinary action in the rules of employment, and that the perpetrators’ acts go against the principle of mutual respect among employees and go beyond the level of general guidance or advice constitutes a reason for a disciplinary action, and (ii) if the DAC notified the perpetrators’ alleged acts of misconduct and provided them with an opportunity to make statements regarding such allegations, and the perpetrators did not have a problem in exercising their right to defend or explain themselves, a defect in such disciplinary procedures cannot be recognized.
The Supreme Court approved the existence of a reason for disciplinary action based on the above reasoning and ruled that the disciplinary procedures had no defect, and quashed and remanded the lower court decision.
This decision is meaningful in that it has clarified that (i) a supervisor continuously and openly reprimanding or ignoring a subordinate with words and actions, or ostracizing him/her or attempting to infringe upon his/her personal information goes beyond the appropriate scope of work and cannot be simply justified as a part of the supervisor’s advice, and (ii) as long as an alleged perpetrator attends a DAC meeting and makes statements as to the reason for disciplinary action, existence of a procedural defect based on infringement upon the right to statement and explanation cannot be acknowledged.
Related Topics
#Wrongful Termination #Workplace Harassment #Employment Litigation