2016Na54360 Nullification of dismissal

*

Stock Company

Ulsan District Court Decision 2015Na20700 Decided July 7, 2016

March 29, 2017

April 19, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s dismissal against the Plaintiff on January 23, 2015 confirms that the dismissal is null and void. The Defendant shall pay KRW 7,299,839 each month to the Plaintiff from January 24, 2015 to the time the Plaintiff is reinstated.

1.Basics

The reason why the court is to use this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except when using the part of Paragraph (h) of Article 1 of the Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows and adding "A No. 15 of the evidence" as evidence. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the same Article.

[Supplementary Use]

H. The rules of employment and collective agreement of the Defendant Company include the following:

<취업규칙 >제2장 인사제16조의1(해고사유)종업원이 다음 각 호의 1에 해당한 때에는 해고할 수 있다.5. 징계해고에 해당한 때6. 근무성적 또는 능력이 현저하게 불량하여 직무를 수행할 수 없다고 인정되었을 때제17조(해고의 예고)① 회사는 종업원을 해고할 때에는 60일 전에 예고한다. 다만 천재, 사변, 기타 부득이한 사유로사업계속이 불가능한 경우 또는 근로자가 고의로 사업에 막대한 지장을 초래하거나 재산상 손해를 끼친 경우에 노동부 장관의 승인을 받은 때에는 그러하지 아니한다.제18조(해고수당)예고하지 아니하고 해고할 때에는 30일분 이상의 평균임금을 해고수당으로 지급한다.제21조(복무사항)종업원은 다음 사항을 준수하여야 한다.1. 항상 건강에 유의하고 명랑활발한 태도로써 근무하여야 하며 회사의 제 방침을 준수하여야 한다.2. 항상 시간을 엄수하며 업무는 정확, 신속히 처리하고 업무의 능률화를 도모한다.제5장 포상 및 징계제68조(징계의 종류)7. 징계해고: 이 규칙 또는 사규에 위반된 행위가 특히 중대하고, 현저한 경우제69조(징계사유)종업원이 다음 각 호의 1에 해당될 때에는 징계한다.1. 이 규칙 제21조에 정하고 있는 복무사항에 위배되는 행위를 한 때2. 정당한 이유 없이 1개월 중 3일 이상 계속 또는 빈번하게 결근하거나, 지각 조퇴가 빈번할 때3. 근태 또는 작업시간을 허위로 조작한 때4. 근무시간 중에 취침하거나 음주행위를 한 때5. 사기 또는 부정한 방법으로 채용되었음이 발견되었을 때6. 청당한 이유 없이 회사가 발행한 문서, 도면, 제 증명서 및 식권, 승차권, 입욕권 등 각종 쿠폰을 위조, 변조하거나 타인에게 대여, 유용한 때7. 허가 없이 회사의 문서, 장부, 사양서(仕樣書) 등을 외부에 열람시킨 때8. 허가 없이 출입금지 장소에 출입한 때9. 고의 또는 중대한 과실로 회사의 시설, 기계, 기물, 집기류를 훼손 또는 감소한 때10. 사내 또는 작업장에서 회사의 승인 없이 사익(社)에 반하는 불순 유인물 및 서적 등을 배포하거나 작업자를 선동 규합하려는 행위를 한 때11. 기타 전(前) 각 호에 준하는 사유에 해당하는 때제73조(징계절차)① 감봉 이상의 징계는 징계위원회를 통하여야 한다.② 회사는 징계를 하고자 할 때에는 대상자의 징계사유, 징계위원회 개최일시 및 장소를 명시하여해당 종업원과 조합에 회의 7일전까지 서면 통보한다.③ 징계위원회는 해당 종업원에게 소명의 기회를 부여하여야 하며, 조합 임원 등 3인이 참고인으로참석하여 변론할 수 있으며, 3인 이내의 증인 신청을 할 수 있다.④ 단체협약 제35조에 의거 이의제기를 하였을 경우 회사는 요청받은 날로부터 15일 이내에 징계위원회를 개최하고 결정한 날로부터 7일 이내에 피징계자에게 통보한다.⑤ 징계위원회의 출석통보를 받고 정당한 사유 없이 응하지 않을 때에는 진술을 포기한 것으로 간주한다.

1. When the company intends to take disciplinary action, it shall notify in writing to the relevant union member and the union seven days before the meeting, specifying the grounds for the disciplinary action, the date and place of the meeting of the disciplinary committee. 2. The disciplinary committee shall provide the relevant union member with an opportunity to vindicate, three persons, such as the partnership's officers, may attend and present, and may apply for witness not more than three persons. 3. In the event of an objection under Article 35 of the Convention, the company shall hold the disciplinary committee within 15 days from the date of request and notify the person subject to disciplinary action within seven days from the date of decision.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

(a) Whether it is null and void as a disciplinary dismissal without undergoing disciplinary procedures;

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The dismissal of this case constitutes a disciplinary dismissal not only ordinary dismissal but also disciplinary dismissal. Even if the dismissal of this case has the character as a disciplinary dismissal but also ordinary dismissal, disciplinary proceedings may not be omitted. The defendant did not undergo disciplinary proceedings under Article 32 of the collective agreement and Article 73 of the Rules of Employment on the ground that the dismissal of this case does not comply with legitimate procedures. Thus, the dismissal of this case is null and void because it does not comply with legitimate procedures.

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, the dismissal of this case is not a disciplinary dismissal, but an ordinary dismissal. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on the premise that the dismissal of this case constitutes a disciplinary dismissal or disciplinary dismissal or an ordinary dismissal cannot be accepted.

① The collective agreement or rules of employment distinguish the head of "personnel" from the head of "Discipline," and the head of "Disciplinary Action," the grounds for dismissal, the grounds for disciplinary action and the kind of disciplinary action (including dismissal dismissal), and the disciplinary procedure are determined respectively. In this case, the rules of employment of the defendant company differs from each other. In the case of this case, the grounds for dismissal in Article 16-1 and the grounds for disciplinary action in Article 69 are specified in the rules of employment in Article 16-1. In particular, Article 16-1 of the rules of employment of the defendant, which stipulates the grounds for dismissal, provides that "when it falls under the disciplinary dismissal in subparagraph 5," and Article 16-1 of the rules of employment of the defendant, which provides that "when it is recognized that the defendant is unable to perform his/her duties because his/her service performance or ability is significantly poor."

② Disciplinary dismissal is a disciplinary action that imposes a responsibility on the perpetrator for the past misconduct or disturbance of corporate order. Thus, the worker's sexuality and ability itself cannot be a ground for dismissal, and the worker's specific behavior constitutes a disturbance of corporate order, but it is a matter of issue as a ground for dismissal. In this case, Article 69 of the defendant's rules of employment provides that disciplinary action may be taken when the worker's "specified act" is committed. Thus, the defendant's dismissal should be premised on the defendant's dismissal by taking into account the plaintiff's specific act.

However, as seen below, the defendant was dismissed for reasons of the plaintiff's failure to take into account the plaintiff's specific act as a matter of action, and thus, it is judged that it falls under ordinary dismissal rather than disciplinary dismissal (Article 69 subparagraph 1 of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company provides that "when the plaintiff commits an act in violation of the matters of service provided for in Article 21 of the Rules," and Article 21 subparagraph 2 of the Rules of Employment provides that "when the plaintiff conducts an act in violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Rules of Employment, it shall be strictly and promptly deal with the work and promote the efficiency of work." However, the work evaluation letter for the plaintiff company includes the contents that "the quality of work is low, and the result of the examination is low in terms of the processing speed and quantity of the request for review." This reason constitutes a ground for disciplinary action in violation of the latter part of Article 21 subparagraph 2 of the Rules of Employment, and it does not constitute a ground for disciplinary action under Article 69 subparagraph 1 of the Rules of Employment."

B. Whether dismissal in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act is null and void

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The notice of termination of the contract issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on January 16, 2015 does not stipulate any reason. The Defendant’s dismissal of the Plaintiff by issuing the above notice of termination of contract is null and void because it violates the provisions of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, which provides that the grounds for dismissal and the time of dismissal shall be notified in writing.

2) Determination

Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that an employer shall have the effect of written notification of the grounds for dismissal and the time of dismissal when the employer intends to dismiss a worker. This is to ensure that the employer is careful in dismissing the worker through written notification of the grounds for dismissal, etc., and that the dispute surrounding the existence and time of dismissal and the reason therefor can be settled in an appropriate and easy manner, and that the employer can properly respond to the dismissal of the worker. Therefore, when the employer gives written notification of the grounds for dismissal, etc., the employer must be able to know in detail what is the grounds for the dismissal in the location of the worker. However, if a person subject to dismissal is already aware of what is the grounds for dismissal and is sufficiently responding thereto, the notification of dismissal in violation of the above provision cannot be deemed as a notification of dismissal, even if the reasons for dismissal were not written in detail (see Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da81609, Jul. 9, 2015; 2014Da76434, Jul. 12, 2015).

In other words, according to the statement of evidence Nos. 5 and return to the instant case, the Defendant’s notice of termination of the contract issued on January 16, 2015 to the Plaintiff is merely stated as “I notify you that you will terminate the employment contract with you on January 23, 2015 pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2) of the employment contract concluded on March 8, 201,” and it is recognized that we do not state specific reasons for dismissal.

그러나 갑 21호증, 을 1 내지 5호증, 을 16, 18, 37호증의 각 기재와 제1심 증인 ■■의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 보면, ① 국제법무팀의 ■■ 상무가

2012. 10.경 원고에게 원고의 2012년도 근무평점이 계약해지 대상에 해당한다는 이유로 계약종료에 관한 설명을 하자, 원고는 2013년 여름경까지 근무하기를 원한다고 말한 사실, ② ■■■ 상무는 원고와의 면담과정에서 있었던 내용을 ■■ 법무실장에게 그대로 전달한 사실, ③ 피고 회사의 인력개발부에서는 2013. 2.경 원고에 대한 계약종료안(계약종료일 : 2013. 6. 30.)을 기안하여 본부장 등의 결재를 받는 한편, 인력개발부 소속 ■■■ 차장은 그 무렵 원고에게 2013.6,30.자로 근로계약이 종료된다는 내용을 알려 준 사실, ④ 원고가 2013. 5.경 피고 회사에 계속 근무하기를 원한다는 의사를 피력하자, 피고는 '직접 분쟁상대방을 대면하거나 즉석에서 현업부서에 의견을 개진하는 업무보다는 원고의 업무처리 이후에 상급자에 의한 수정·보완이 가능한 계약서 검토업무에 집중하는 조건'으로 계속 근무를 제안하였고, 원고가 위 조건을 수용함에 따라 2013. 6.경 이후에도 원고가 계속 근무하게 된 사실, ⑤ 원고가 2013년 및 2014년에도 계약해지대상에 해당하는 근무평점을 받게 되자, ■■■ 상무는 2014.12.경 원고와의 면담을 통해 6개월 분 급여를 지급받는 조건으로 사직을 권고한 사실, ⑥ 원고는 2014. 12. 22.부터 2015. 1. 11.까지 휴가를 다녀온 다음 2015. 1, 13. 피고 회사의 인력개발부 소속 ■■■ 부장을 면담하였는데, ■■■부장은 원고에게 "평판조사는 부서원뿐만 아니라 타부서 직원(업무 관계자)까지 다면평가를 실시하였고, 성과가 미진한 분들에 대하여는 회사에서 조치가 필요한 시점이다."라고 설명하면서 원고에게 사직을 권유한 사실, ⑦ 원고가 6개월 분 급여를 보상으로 주는 것은 매력적인 제안이지만 이렇게 나가고 싶지는 않고, 나가더라도 공식적으로 해고 절차를 밟고 나가겠다."라고 하면서 사직을 거부하자, ■■■ 부장은 원고에게 조만간 회사의 조치사항이 통보될 것임을 고지한 사실, ⑧ 피고 회사의 인력개발부는 근무평가와 평판조사 결과를 참작하여 2015. 1. 16.자 계약종료통지서를 작성한 다음 이를 원고에게 전달하였고, 2015. 1. 22. 원고를 면담하는 과정에서 회사의 방침 및 계약해지 근거에 대하여도 설명한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 갑 6, 7호증의 각 기재와 당심에서의 원고 본인신문결과만으로는 위 인정을 뒤집기에 부족하고, 달리 반증이 없다.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is determined that the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff, was aware of what the reasons for the dismissal of the Plaintiff, and could have properly responded thereto. Thus, the dismissal in this case cannot be deemed as a violation of the provisions of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act solely on the ground that the notice of termination of the contract as of January 16, 2015 does not contain specific reasons for dismissal. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

(c) Whether dismissal without justifiable grounds is null and void;

1) The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 피고 회사의 국제법무팀 소속 변호사로서 성실하게 근무하여 왔고, 그 직무수행능력도 근로계약관계를 유지하는 데에 별다른 문제가 없는 상태였다. 피고 회사의 원고에 대한 근무평가는 그 평가기준 자체가 불합리한 것이었을 뿐만 아니라 그에 따른 근무평점도 원고와 사이가 좋지 않은 ■■■에 의해 왜곡된 것이었다. 한편 피고는 원고에게 재교육 또는 직무재배치의 기회를 부여하는 등 해고회피를 위한 노력도 하지 아니하였다. 따라서 이 사건 해고는 정당한 이유가 없는 것으로서 무효이다.

2) Determination

In the case of dismissal of a worker on the grounds of poor work performance or work ability, whether such dismissal has justifiable grounds under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act shall be determined reasonably by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as whether the work evaluation was conducted based on fair and reasonable standards, whether the work evaluation can be deemed considerably lacking in the job performance ability of the worker concerned to the extent that it is impossible to continue the labor contract relations, whether the worker has been given an opportunity to improve through re-education or re-disposition, the intention and adaptation ability of the worker after being given an opportunity for improvement, and what is the status of the worker

다시 이 사건으로 돌아와 보건대, 을 1 내지 7호증, 을 16, 18, 26호증, 을 27호증의 1 내지 5, 을 33호증의 1의 각 기재와 제1심 증인 ■■■의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정할 수 있는 아래와 같은 사정을 모두 종합하여 보면, 피고가 근무성적 또는 근무능력 불량을 이유로 원고를 해고한 것은 정당한 이유가 있는 것으로 판단된다. 원고의 이 부분 주장도 받아들일 수 없다.

① The Defendant subdivided the assessment items into eight categories of knowledge, understanding, human relations, sense of responsibility, awareness of cost reduction and improvement, discipline, good faith, contribution level, etc. In evaluating the employment of the attorneys belonging to an international law firm team, the Defendant prepared the assessment criteria so that the assessment can be conducted in various aspects by allocating points for each item. Such assessment criteria have been established prior to the Plaintiff’s entry into the Defendant company. The assessment criteria established by the Defendant Company are not a "large-scale assessment method," but a "large-scale assessment method," which is not a "large-scale assessment method," which allocates a certain percentage by grade. In the meantime, the assessment criteria formulated by the Defendant Company are not a "large-scale assessment method," but rather a "large-scale assessment criteria." However, this is merely due to the characteristics of the work performed by an international attorney-at-law. Therefore, it is difficult to see that the assessment criteria itself is unreasonable on the basis of such circumstances.

② The Plaintiff’s work evaluation was conducted five times every five years in service with the Defendant Company. The said evaluation was conducted in a way that averages the 1 and 2 evaluation scores assessed by multiple evaluators (the head of the International Legal Team and the person in charge). While the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant Company, the detailed details of the work evaluation conducted for the attorneys-at-law belonging to the International Legal Team are as follows.

[Attachment 1] Details of work evaluation from 2010 to 2014 1]

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

According to the above work evaluation, the Plaintiff had been employed at the lowest level among the international lawyers belonging to the International Legal Team for five consecutive years in which he/she had been employed in the Defendant Company. In particular, from 2012 to 2014, the Plaintiff had been employed at work for three consecutive years (74 points). Meanwhile, from 2012 to 2014, the Plaintiff’s work reputation point in the Plaintiff’s service from 2012 to 2014 differs from the average points of other attorneys except the Plaintiff as described below (2).

[Attachment 2] Preparation for the plaintiff's work reputation point and the average score of other attorneys-at-law

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

③ 피고는 2013. 6.경부터 원고에게 계약서 검토 업무를 주로 맡김으로써 직책과장 - 부서장 - 담당중역(상무)에 의해 원고의 업무에 대한 통제 및 지도가 가능하도록 조치하였다. 그럼에도 불구하고 원고는 2013년도 근무평가에서도 "결함을 개선하기 위하여 업무과정에서 지적을 하고 있으나 성과가 나타나지 않는다."는 등의 이유로 다시 계약해지 대상에 해당하는 근무평점을 받게 되었다(2013년도 근무평가와 관련하여, 당시 국제법무팀 직책과장을 맡고 있던 ■■■도 "현재 업무의 질적 수준을 보면, 계약서 검토, 중재/소송 지원 등 법무수행에 있어서 주요 리스크를 정확하게 짚지 못하고 있고, 세밀한 검토가 부족함, 원고가 최종본이라고 한 의견서에 대해서도 직책과장-부서 장 - 담당중역의 review에서 상당히 많은 수정사항이 발견되고 있기 때문에 일을 전적으로 믿고 맡길 수 있는 상황이 아님."이라는 보고서를 제출하였다).

피고는 원고에게 1년간 더 근무하면서 근무능력을 향상시킬 수 있는 기회를 부여하였으나, 원고는 2014년도 근무평가에서도 "검토 결과에 대해 수정 및 보완 의견을 주고 있지만 발전이 없다."는 등의 이유로 계약해지 대상에 해당하는 근무평점을 다시 받게 되었다(2014년도 근무평가와 관련하여, 당시 국제법무팀 직책과장을 맡고 있던 ■■■도 "원고에게 할당된 업무의 난이도는 다른 변호사들에 비해 매우 낮은 상태이지만, 원고가 수행한 업무의 질은 다른 변호사들보다 떨어지는 상태이다."라는 내용의 보고서를 제출하였다)3).

④ The Plaintiff continued to be employed at the lowest level for a period of five years in service in the Defendant Company, and continued three consecutive years from 2012 to 2014, the Defendant, without immediately concluding the contract, recommended resignation on the condition of payment of wages for six months, or recommended the transfer to another affiliate within the group. However, the Plaintiff rejected all these proposals.

⑤ The Defendant is a company with a large portion of overseas sales, and the conclusion of the English contract and relevant international arbitration cases are frequent in the present business department of the seven business departments. Attorneys-at-law belonging to the International Legal Team of the Defendant Company are in charge of the above-mentioned English contract-related business and international arbitration-related business. As such, given the nature of the business, a small number of rooms alone risking considerable economic loss to the company, the said attorneys-at-law must be deemed to have an individual ability to carry out such business affairs to the extent that they can smoothly deal with such business affairs. Considering the above circumstances, it is reasonable to evaluate the attorneys-at-law belonging to the Defendant Company’s International Legal Team for the significant reason that the lack of continuous and significant performance or service capacity can no longer maintain labor contract relations.

D. Sub-committee

The dismissal of this case is ordinarily conducted through legitimate procedures and is deemed to have legitimate grounds. On the other hand, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of the dismissal of this case and payment of wages and consolation money cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Kim Jong-chul

Judge Hun-Ba

1) The persons listed in the Overall title are the head of the department or the managing director of the International Legal Team in charge of work evaluation.

2) 원고는 "2012. 10.경 중재사건을 처리하는 과정에서 ■■■ 상무와 사이가 나빠졌고 그로 인하여 ■■■ 상무가 고의적으로 원고에 대한 근무평점을 낮게 준 것이다."라는 취지로 주장한다. 그러나 2013년 및 2014년 근무평가의 경우에는 ■■■ 부서장이 1차 평가를 한 이후에 ■■■ 상무가 2차 평가를 하였는데, ■■■ 부서장의 원고에 대한 근무평점 역시 각 71점에 해당하는 것임은 앞서 본 바와 같으므로, ■■■ 상무가 고의적으로 원고에 대한 근무평가를 왜곡시킨 것이라고 보이지도 않는다.

3) In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “the Defendant, by allowing the Plaintiff to conduct the review of the contract only, was practically excluded from the business.” However, the Plaintiff’s primary performance of the review of the contract after June 2013 is deemed to have not been improved in the course of performing the review of the contract corresponding to the basic duties as an international attorney-at-law. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is unacceptable.