2014du35799 Revocation of the Tribunal for Relief of Unfair Disciplinary Action

1. A;

2. B

3. C

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

person

Academy Korea Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu46213 Decided January 24, 2014

June 26, 2014

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where an employer orders an employee who committed an accident, misconduct, etc. as to Article 2 of the Grounds for Appeal to submit a statement of the time when he/she committed an accident, etc., if the statement of the time is not merely to report the situation of the case, but also to refer to a criminal offense or rebuttal that reflects and commits a crime regarding an accident, etc. that occurred in labor relations, it is a compulsory enforcement on the internal ethical judgment guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus, it is not effective as it infringes on the freedom of conscience, and an employer’s order to submit a written statement of the time is not a legitimate order for business (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du6605, Jan. 14, 2010).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below determined that the time limit of submission by the intervenor company to the plaintiffs is included in the crime of death and reflectiveness, and that the submission by the intervenor company to the plaintiffs cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for disciplinary action on the ground that the time limit limit of submission by the intervenor company to the plaintiffs cannot be deemed a legitimate order of business, since the plaintiffs' refusal to comply with the above order cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for disciplinary action.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the judgment below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In a case where it is sufficient to recognize the validity of a disciplinary action only with some other disciplinary reasons which are not recognized as a part of the various disciplinary reasons, it is not illegal even if the disciplinary action is maintained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da33999, Dec. 28, 2007). In a case where a disciplinary action is imposed against a person subject to disciplinary action, it shall be left at the discretion of the disciplinary authority. However, if the disciplinary action taken as an exercise of discretionary authority is recognized as an abuse of discretionary power, which is considerably inappropriate under the social norms, it can be deemed unlawful. If the disciplinary action is deemed an unlawful disposition that goes beyond the scope of discretionary power because it has considerably lost validity under the social norms, it shall be deemed that the contents and nature of the disciplinary action, the purpose of the disciplinary action, and the criteria for a disciplinary action, etc., are clearly unreasonable and clearly taking into account various factors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du9599, Dec. 29, 2005).

The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, and judged that the act of causing the risk of accidents by entering the intervenor company which keeps a large amount of dangerous materials at night constitutes "an act contrary to official duties among the grounds for disciplinary actions stipulated in Article 69 subparagraph 2 of the rules of employment of the intervenor company." However, in light of the degree of the offense, the disciplinary action in January 1 of the reduction rate (hereinafter referred to as "the disciplinary action in this case") was too heavy beyond the scope of discretion of the person having authority over disciplinary action.

However, we cannot accept such judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

The record reveals the following facts.

① The Intervenor Company is a company producing plastic additives by inserting dangerous substances as fuel in the chemical reaction, and keeps large quantities of inflammable and explosive dangerous substances in the outdoor tank and factory. Accordingly, there are concerns that large-scale accidents may occur due to leakage of dangerous substances, etc., and where such accidents occur, it may cause enormous disasters to nearby residents as well as the Intervenor Company. After the instant disciplinary action, the Intervenor Company was subject to the suspension of operation for one month.

② For the foregoing risk, employees engaged in the manufacture of the Intervenor company like the Plaintiffs were required to observe safety rules, and accordingly, the Intervenor company made and submitted a written safety pledge upon entering into a labor contract. Among them, there were the following: “When entering into an employment contract, the Intervenor company would follow the instructions of the responsible manager and SDP (work standards) and would not perform drinking in the workplace without permission.”

③ On August 9, 2011 and August 11, 2011, the Plaintiffs started drinking from each of the immediately preceding day, and started drinking to the new wall, and went through the Intervenor Company at around 05:30 or around 04:30, and 04:30, and the outdoor tank in which the sloping room is located and the dangerous substance was stored was far away from approximately 20 meters.

④ The Plaintiffs, as seen above, were under drinking a considerable amount of alcohol, and were in the A.M. work without completely getting out of the state of their drinking. Unlike ordinary work, when operating the equipment of the intervenor company’s factory, which was conducted once a year, according to the process of subdivision work, the Plaintiffs directly dismantled various equipment to check whether there is a material, and then replaced or washing work was conducted. As such, the Plaintiffs’ occurrence of an unexpected accident was higher than ordinary work.

In light of the above facts and other records, it can be inferred that the plaintiffs did not have a normal physical and mental state due to drinking time and the participant company's entry time, and the risk of safety accident to take place in the participant company without permission, the defendant company's act using facilities to take place outside of work, and physical and mental work after drinking and without physical and mental soundness, the participant company's authority to manage the participant company's facilities is inevitably emphasized due to the risks of safety accident, and the service rules related to safety should be strictly observed. In light of drinking time and the participant company's time of entry and exit, it can be inferred that the plaintiffs did not have a normal physical and mental state due to such drinking time at the time of the plaintiff company's work. In light of the above drinking situation, the plaintiffs' work risks in the participant company's work without permission, and the defendant company's act of using facilities to take place without permission in a new wall, which caused the risk of safety accident, regardless of whether the accident actually occurred, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's discretion is considerably unlawful by social norms.

Nevertheless, while recognizing the grounds for disciplinary action as above, the court below determined that the disciplinary action of the intervenor company in this case is too inappropriate on the grounds of its stated reasoning. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on disciplinary action, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Shin Jae-young in charge

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Gin-young