[In Court: Direct Exposure] ① Perpetrator Denies Harassment, Disciplinary Action... Court Says "Procedures Must Be Followed"

There are workers who go to 'hell' for their livelihood. They are victims of 'workplace harassment,' where those in superior positions abuse their power to cause suffering to other workers. For them, the workplace, which should be a rewarding environment, is a nightmare.

Every time a workplace harassment incident occurs, public criticism heats up, but the problem persists. Last month in Chungnam, a teacher at a national public daycare center was ostracized at work and made an extreme choice.

The Labor Standards Act defines workplace harassment as "acts that use superiority in the workplace to cause physical or mental pain to other workers beyond the appropriate scope of work or to worsen the working environment" and prohibits such acts.

However, the number of reports is increasing every year. According to the Ministry of Employment and Labor on the 4th, since the Workplace Harassment Prevention Act was implemented in July 2019, the cumulative number of reports received has been 23,541. It recorded 2,130 cases in the first six months of the implementation year, 5,823 in 2020, 7,774 in 2021, and 7,814 last year.

If perpetrators do not admit to their harassment acts themselves or refuse financial compensation responsibilities and company sanctions, harassment cases become prolonged lawsuits, increasing the victims' suffering. If the perpetrator appeals the disciplinary action taken at the workplace, it leads to an administrative lawsuit challenging the legality of the disciplinary action.

A representative issue encountered in administrative lawsuits is the 'procedural legitimacy' of disciplinary actions. Even if the perpetrator's act is recognized, the procedure of imposing sanctions must be lawful. If procedural defects are acknowledged in the lawsuit and the disciplinary action itself is canceled, according to the principle of res judicata, the workplace disciplinary committee cannot impose the same sanction again for the same matter.

Attorney Kwon Jae-sung, head of the One Top Law Office, said, "The administrative court determines whether the workplace disciplinary action against the perpetrator was procedurally lawful based on whether the perpetrator's right to defense was guaranteed during the disciplinary process, whether there was an opportunity to explain, and whether they were informed of the opportunity to appeal." Attorney Kwon explained, "When an employer holds a disciplinary committee, they must first check whether the committee is composed according to the labor regulations or labor-management agreement, and must timely notify the perpetrator of the matter for which the disciplinary committee is convened to give them a chance to explain."

Professor A at a domestic university forced teaching assistants, with whom he had conflicts in 2019, to resign or submitted a letter of recommendation for their voluntary resignation to the university at his discretion. The university authorities investigated Professor A and issued a reprimand, but he filed an appeal lawsuit claiming "there were procedural defects in the school's disciplinary action." He argued that the list of disciplinary committee members was not disclosed and that he was not informed that he could file a challenge against committee members.

However, in February, the Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 6 dismissed Professor A's claim. Contrary to his assertion, Professor A had identified the disciplinary committee members before the faculty disciplinary committee meeting, and it was determined that he was not obstructed from exercising the right to challenge.

On the other hand, the same court's Administrative Division 3 ruled in February that a small business employee dismissed for workplace harassment was subject to "unfair dismissal." This employee was dismissed last year for reasons including making long phone calls after work every day to criticize the company and forcing three junior employees to resign. The Central Labor Relations Commission regarded this as unfair dismissal and reinstated the employee.

In this case, the company filed a lawsuit to cancel the Central Labor Relations Commission's decision, but the court ruled, "The company did not attempt to mediate between the parties and dismissed the employee immediately without giving a chance to correct the misconduct through warnings or caution."

Meanwhile, the court issued an administrative lawsuit ruling choosing the latter of two values: 'protection of whistleblowers' and 'sanctions against workplace harassment perpetrators.' Civil servant B from a central government agency was suspended from duty by the Central Disciplinary Committee in February 2020 for alleged 'gapjil' (abuse of power) toward employees. This was a severe disciplinary action taken after an internal investigation following a grievance raised by a subordinate in the same agency.

B applied to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, claiming, "I was disadvantaged because I was slandered after reporting public interest corruption regarding overtime pay fraud," and requested cancellation of the disciplinary effect. The Commission canceled the effect.

Then, B's agency filed an administrative lawsuit asserting that the original disciplinary action was correct, and the court sided with the agency. The Seoul High Court Administrative Division 10 explained the ruling, "Even if the public interest of preventing corruption among public officials is somewhat compromised, the harm caused by workplace harassment must not be greater." The court explained that regardless of B's public interest activities to resolve corruption in his agency, if he verbally abused or insulted subordinates during work, he is subject to disciplinary action.

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