JIPYONG LLC

Jipyong News|Newsletter_Labor & Employment

[Recent Court Case 9] The rules of employment for officers were not invalid, and a dismissal was not unfair only because it was based on the rules of employment for officers

2020.01.06

[Case No. Seoul Administrative Court 2019kuhap50861 decided on February 6, 2020] 
 
The plaintiff was a corporation engaged in automobile manufacturing and sales, and the lawsuit participant on the defendant side (hereinafter the “Participant”) was a person who worked as an officer at the factory production development headquarters of the plaintiff.  The plaintiff’s HR committee voted for ordinary dismissal against the Participant and notified him of the dismissal.  The Regional Labor Relations Commission and the National Labor Relations Commission decided that the dismissal was invalid. 
 
The plaintiff argued that the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission was illegal, for the dismissal was legal since it was impossible to maintain the employment relationship under social norms and the dismissal was legitimate. 
 
The Seoul Administrative Court found that the rules of employment for executive officers were not invalid due to following reasons: 
 
①  it was not required to write only one rules of employment at a single workplace, and an employer can write a separate rules of employment for part of the workforce; ② the rules of employment for officers was newly enacted, thus it did not violate the proviso to Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act even if the employer did not get the consent of the majority of the whole workforce, for it was not a disadvantageous “alteration” of the rules of employment; ③ there was a reasonable ground to treat officers and other ordinary employees differently.  Thus the court decided that the dismissal could not be considered invalid just because it was based on the rules of the employment for the officers. 
 
However, the court viewed that in order for the reasons for the dismissal to be justified, it was not enough to have the dismissal based on poor working attitude or poor work performance alone, and also there was no room for improvement; the plaintiff, the employer, must further prove that it was not possible for him to carry out the duties he was in charge of and/or he had no intent to provide labor. 
 
In this case, the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission was valid (thus the dismissal was illegal) since it was not impossible for the Participant to perform his duties and he had at least some willingness to provide his labor, considering following factors: 
 
①  the Participant recorded the most savings among team members; ② the Participant received rank S (the highest rank) for performance reviews; ③ the Participant expressed his willingness for performance improvement by submitting his plan for performance improvement many times.

Newsletter_Labor & Employment [Recent Court Case 8] It is an “accident on duty” if a pharmaceutical salesperson died in an accident after having a dinner meeting with nurses at the hospital he was in charge of 2020.01.17

News Season’s Greetings 2020.01.01

Back to List

Related Practices

Professionals

Associate
Jong Tak PARK
+82-2-6200-1653 jtpark@jipyong.com