Court: "Disciplinary Measures Not Specified in Collective Agreement or Employment Rules Are Illegal... Job Reassignment Must Be Canceled"

“An ‘Administrative Order’ in Name Only, but Substantively Disciplinary
Invalid Without a Basis in the Collective Agreement”

Yonhap News Agency

A court has ruled that imposing disciplinary measures in ways not specified in a company's collective agreement or employment rules exceeds the scope of disciplinary authority and constitutes an illegal action.

According to the legal community on April 27, the 13th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Jin Hyunseop) partially ruled in favor of the plaintiff in February in a lawsuit filed by employee A against the chairman of the Central Labor Relations Commission, seeking to cancel a retrial decision regarding relief for unfair disciplinary action.

A, who joined B Co., Ltd. and was in charge of production management work while also serving as a branch office manager for the labor union, received a disciplinary measure from the company in May 2024. The measure included a one-month suspension and a job reassignment from office work to on-site production work. At the time, the company cited four grounds for discipline: ▲ Falsification of production plans and performance reports and submission of false reports ▲ Leakage of company production and delivery plan materials to external parties ▲ Placing an unauthorized order for winter uniforms worth approximately 1.21 million won ▲ Refusing to comply with instructions for lawn maintenance work and to submit a written statement, totaling four reasons. A filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission but, after the request was dismissed, proceeded to file a formal lawsuit.

A argued that the job reassignment resulted in the loss of fixed overtime pay, effectively constituting a pay cut. On this basis, A emphasized that the company’s imposition of a job reassignment—which is not stipulated in the regulations—in addition to the original one-month suspension constituted double discipline and an abuse of discretion, as well as a procedural violation of the collective agreement and employment rules. Furthermore, A asserted that the company had a history of suppressing union activities and claimed that this disciplinary action was a retaliatory measure against a union executive reinstated after mass layoffs, thus constituting an unfair labor practice.

The court accepted A’s argument, recognizing the job reassignment as a substantive disciplinary measure. The court pointed out, “Because disciplinary action is disadvantageous to the employee, it is not permissible to impose any type of discipline not specified in the collective agreement or employment rules.” The company’s collective agreement and employment rules listed only warning, reprimand, pay cut, suspension, and dismissal as disciplinary measures, and did not include job reassignment. Therefore, including job reassignment as a disciplinary measure was unlawful.

The court found only two of the four grounds for discipline—leakage of materials and unauthorized orders—were justified. However, it concluded, “Given that an unlawful job reassignment was included and only some of the original reasons were recognized, it cannot be assumed that the company would have imposed a one-month suspension if it were to reassess the disciplinary actions.” Thus, it ruled that the entire disciplinary measure should be canceled.

However, the court did not accept A's claim of unfair labor practices, citing insufficient evidence that the company intended to disadvantage A for union activities.

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