Supreme Court Rules Dismissal of MBC Camera Reporter for Creating 'Colleague Blacklist' Is Lawful

Supreme Court. / Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that MBC's dismissal of a cameraman for allegedly creating a 'blacklist' targeting fellow employees was lawful.

On the 20th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Kim Sanghwan) announced that it overturned the lower court's partial ruling in favor of former MBC cameraman A in his wrongful dismissal lawsuit against the company and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

Previously, MBC's Audit Department determined that Mr. A was involved in creating and executing a blacklist document targeting colleagues in 2017, and the MBC Disciplinary Committee resolved to dismiss him, notifying him of the dismissal in 2018.

According to the dismissal notice, there were three disciplinary reasons against Mr. A. These included creating a blacklist and related personnel proposals and reporting them to the personnel authority, thereby disrupting work order; participating in unfair labor practices by ensuring the personnel proposals were executed; and committing illegal acts by sharing documents containing defamatory and insulting content.

The first trial court found insufficient factual basis for the personnel proposal reporting but judged that the other two disciplinary reasons alone justified Mr. A's dismissal. In contrast, the appellate court ruled the dismissal invalid, stating that sharing the documents with others could not be considered defamation or insult. Ultimately, dismissing him based on only one of the three disciplinary reasons was deemed an 'abuse and excess of disciplinary authority.'

However, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and reconsideration of the case. The court stated, "Mr. A's creation, reporting, and transmission of the blacklist documents and personnel proposals violated company regulations that require mutual respect of personality and maintenance of workplace order," and "this corresponds to disciplinary reasons stipulated in the employment rules." It added, "The lower court erred in its legal interpretation of the disciplinary reasons, which affected its judgment."

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