Supreme Court: "Personnel Rule 'Leave of Absence During Detention' Does Not Apply to Workers Released on Bail"

Supreme Court Grand Bench.
Photo by Supreme Court

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Supreme Court has ruled that if an employee is detained and thus realistically unable to provide labor, and this is set as a reason for leave of absence, then refusing the reinstatement request of an employee released on bail is unjust.

The Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) announced on the 23rd that it partially overturned the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed employee A's appeal in a disciplinary invalidation lawsuit against Kyungpook National University Hospital, and remanded the case to the Daegu High Court.

The court stated, "The lower court's judgment contained errors in the legal principles regarding the legitimacy of the leave of absence order, which affected the ruling."

Employee A was working at the hospital when he was indicted in 2017 on charges of obstruction of business and injury, and on February 9, 2017, was sentenced to eight months imprisonment by the Daegu District Court and detained.

According to the hospital's personnel regulations, A was ordered to take a leave of absence effective February 16, 2017. The hospital's personnel regulations stipulated that ▲ when an employee is detained and indicted in a criminal case, a leave of absence may be ordered (Article 31, Clause 2), ▲ the leave period shall be until the first criminal judgment, but if detention continues, it may be extended until the final judgment (Article 32, Clause 2), and ▲ an employee on leave must apply for reinstatement within 30 days after the reason for leave ceases, and the employer must promptly order reinstatement (Article 35, Paragraph 1).

A appealed the first-instance judgment and was released on bail on April 6, 2017. After being released, A applied for reinstatement to the hospital on April 13, 2017, but the hospital rejected the reinstatement request, stating that "the reason for leave has not ceased."

Eventually, A was fined 5 million won in the appellate court on September 22, 2017, and was released, returning to work in October 2017.

Subsequently, A filed a lawsuit claiming wages from April to September, arguing that since he was able to provide labor from April, the reason for leave had ceased, and the hospital's refusal to reinstate him was illegal.

Five union members who had participated in a strike with A and received deferred prosecution or summary fines also joined the lawsuit.

The first trial court ruled that the disciplinary actions against the five union members were unfair, considering that the hospital had not imposed any special disciplinary measures on those previously convicted during union disputes. However, A's claim was dismissed.

At that time, the court reasoned, "Since the plaintiff was released on bail and was not re-detained, the plaintiff is no longer in a situation where he cannot provide labor for a considerable period," but added, "However, it is recognized that providing labor is highly inappropriate, so the defendant's refusal to reinstate the plaintiff is not illegal."

It further explained, "The bail release is only a provisional release until the main judgment is delivered, and there is concern that if bail is revoked or a prison sentence is imposed, the plaintiff may still be unable to provide labor. If employees were uniformly reinstated in such cases, they might be ordered to take leave again depending on the judgment, which would significantly undermine the stability of labor relations not only for the plaintiff but also for other employees on leave."

The appellate court also found no problem with the first trial's judgment.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the hospital had no justifiable reason to refuse the reinstatement request and sided with A.

The court stated, "Considering that the defendant's personnel regulations do not simply state 'when indicted' as the reason for leave but specify 'when detained and indicted,' and that the leave period is principally until the first criminal judgment but can be extended until the final judgment if detention continues, Article 31, Clause 2 of the defendant's personnel regulations appears to set 'cases where realistic labor provision is impossible due to detention' as the reason for leave."

It continued, "Since the plaintiff was released on bail, the reason for the leave order in this case ceased, so unless there are special circumstances, the defendant should have promptly ordered reinstatement upon the plaintiff's request according to Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the personnel regulations. The mere possibility that bail might be revoked or a prison sentence imposed later, making labor provision impossible again, does not justify concluding that the plaintiff was in a situation where providing labor was highly inappropriate at the time of the reinstatement refusal."

The court added, "Nevertheless, the lower court dismissed the plaintiff's claim solely on the grounds that providing labor was highly inappropriate, thus ruling that the refusal to reinstate was not illegal. This constitutes a misinterpretation of the legal principles regarding the legitimacy of the leave order, which affected the judgment."

However, the Supreme Court dismissed A's appeal regarding unpaid wages for February to March 2017, the period during which he was detained, stating that the hospital's leave order at that time was justifiable, and although the reasoning was somewhat inadequate, the conclusion was appropriate.

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