Supreme Court: "Grounded Complaints and Accusations Are Not Grounds for Disciplinary Action"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that if union members file multiple lawsuits and complaints against management based on facts as part of legitimate union activities, such actions do not constitute grounds for disciplinary measures.

The Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Kim Jae-hyung) announced on the 4th that it overturned the lower court's partial ruling in favor of the plaintiff in the case where Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST) sued the Central Labor Commission to cancel the retrial decision on unfair dismissal relief, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

Union members affiliated with UNIST, including Mr. A, were referred to the disciplinary committee in July 2015 for reasons such as indiscriminate lawsuits and complaints and neglect of duty, and were respectively dismissed and expelled. They applied for relief to the Central Labor Commission and received a ruling of unfair dismissal. However, UNIST filed a lawsuit seeking to cancel the unfair dismissal relief ruling.

The first trial court found that among the disciplinary reasons presented by the management against Mr. A, indiscriminate lawsuits and complaints and neglect of duty were justified. Regarding Mr. B, the court judged that illegal hacking of confidential documents and indiscriminate lawsuits and complaints constituted grounds for discipline. However, the court dismissed the management's claim, stating that these disciplinary reasons were not severe enough to make it impossible to continue the employment relationship according to social norms.

The second trial court overturned the first trial's ruling, finding that the indiscriminate lawsuits and complaints by Mr. A and Mr. B constituted grounds for dismissal. The second trial court stated, "Mr. A and Mr. B filed lawsuits and complaints against UNIST executives and employees in 17 cases, all of which were dismissed or found to have no charges," and added, "The indiscriminate lawsuits and complaints caused significant damage to UNIST's credibility."

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling again, stating that Mr. A's lawsuits and complaints do not constitute grounds for discipline. The court explained, "Among the targets of Mr. A's complaints were cases that involved investigation requests from the Prime Minister's Office, unpaid wages, personnel disadvantages, and sexual harassment allegations," and added, "As a union representative, Mr. A's complaints were a lawful exercise of rights seeking punishment for matters that could reasonably be suspected as criminal acts and also constituted legitimate union activities."

Furthermore, the court stated, "The work of UNIST, which has a high degree of public interest, must be conducted lawfully according to laws and regulations and needs to be monitored and checked to prevent illegal acts," and concluded, "Mr. A's complaint actions should not be considered grounds for discipline," thereby remanding the case.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.