Gwangju Gwangsan-gu Facility Management Corporation Employee Dismissed...Union Announces Strong Response

Recently, the Gwangsan-gu Facilities Management Corporation in Gwangju, which had previously canceled disciplinary actions against an employee after the Labor Relations Commission ruled that "severe disciplinary actions without clear reasons and depriving the opportunity to explain are unfair," has once again decided on a severe disciplinary action of "dismissal" against the same employee. The employee has expressed feelings of injustice, calling the disciplinary action a scapegoating witch hunt to evade responsibility, while the labor union has announced plans for a strong response.

According to Gwangsan-gu, the Facilities Management Corporation, and the labor union on the 24th, the corporation decided on a severe disciplinary action of "dismissal" against Team Leader A. Gwangsan-gu requested the corporation to decide on the severe disciplinary action, citing a violation of the "duty of sincerity," and the corporation accepted this request.

The corporation judged that Team Leader A gave an unfair work order to the audit officer during the personnel committee meeting regarding Director B, instructing to set the disciplinary penalty as "one-month salary reduction," and that A neglected duties by acting beyond authority as the secretary of the personnel committee by defending the disciplinary target and arguing the validity of the disciplinary penalty. It also found that A obstructed the execution of the one-month salary reduction disciplinary action against Director B.

As a result, the corporation concluded that Team Leader A's intentional misconduct was severe, including demanding false preparation of review materials, abusing authority as the personnel committee secretary, and obstructing the execution of the resolution, and thus decided on "dismissal." This is the highest level of disciplinary action among dismissal, removal, demotion, suspension, salary reduction, and reprimand.

Team Leader A has expressed feelings of injustice regarding this. A confirmed that he was indeed working as the head of the Communication Innovation Team, responsible for personnel, discipline, audit, and labor matters at the time, but explained that, believing audits should be independent, he did not interfere with the preparation of review materials except for proofreading errors, allowing the audit officer to prepare them independently and sincerely.

He stated that all matters affecting the disciplinary action were decided by the corporation’s director and the responsible staff, and that decisions regarding the disciplinary penalty were made with legal support from the Gwangsan-gu Office Legal Support Division.

Regarding the claim that "the disciplinary penalty was falsely written as a one-month salary reduction and requested at the personnel committee," he said, "The responsible staff reported and revised the review materials to the director multiple times to finalize the document," adding, "After the personnel committee meeting, I asked the staff why it was specifically stated as 'one-month salary reduction,' but they just gave vague answers."

He added, "At that time, the director disliked Director B, so there was no way he would listen to me. Would it have been possible for me to tell the staff and the director to decide on a one-month salary reduction?"

He also rebutted, saying, "The statements I made at the personnel committee were merely explanations to questions raised by the committee members. If I had defended Director B or argued for justification, would the committee members have remained silent?"

Furthermore, he said, "'I mentioned that the disciplinary target did not appear for explanation because when asked, they felt somewhat embarrassed,' which was just stating a fact. I don't understand why this is considered defending the disciplinary target," and lamented, "The specific disciplinary penalty (one-month salary reduction) was decided by the responsible staff and the director, so why should I be falsely accused of 'infringing on the independence of the personnel committee's decision-making authority' just because I gave intermediate approval?"

He also denied the allegation that he obstructed the execution of the one-month salary reduction disciplinary action against Director B.

Team Leader A explained, "At that time, a TF team was operating to review the corporation’s regulations under the director’s special instructions. I reported to the director and drafted a 'letter to withhold follow-up measures for the disciplinary target.' I never gave unfair work orders to the labor staff during the drafting process," drawing a clear line.

Team Leader A plans to file an unfair disciplinary action relief application with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission regarding the dismissal and intends to coordinate a joint response with the integrated labor union.

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