‘Dismissal → Reinstatement → Re-discipline’... ‘Three disciplinary measures’ over 10 years, Supreme Court management finally wins

The Supreme Court ruled that if re-disciplinary action was taken after the disciplinary action was canceled due to procedural defects, the action was lawful even if the statute of limitations for disciplinary action had expired from the time of the misconduct.

According to the legal community on the 11th, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and confirmed the union's victory in the appeal trial of the honesty invalidity confirmation lawsuit filed by Mr. B, an audit employee of Union A (hereinafter referred to as the Union), against the union in January.

This incident dates back to 2015.

Mr. B, who was an employee of the union's audit office at the time, was accused of intentionally omitting or concealing the facts of misconduct, including embezzlement, by a fellow employee.

Accordingly, the union processed Mr. B's disciplinary dismissal (firing) in 2020, but Mr. B objected and filed a lawsuit, and in February 2023, the Supreme Court confirmed the invalidity of the disciplinary dismissal.

Accordingly, the union reinstated Mr. A and lowered the level of disciplinary action, imposing a 'six-month suspension' (second disciplinary action).

However, this time, the Local Labor Relations Commission canceled it due to procedural flaws.

In the end, the union corrected the procedural shortcomings and issued another six-month suspension (third disciplinary action) in November 2023.

In response, Mr. B filed another lawsuit, saying, “Disciplinary action in 2023 for misconduct in 2015 would have exceeded the statute of limitations for disciplinary action, which is usually 5 years.”

The first trial court ruled in Mr. B’s favor.

The court ruled that “since a disciplinary decision was requested five years after the date on which the reason for disciplinary action arose, the relevant disposition was invalid due to a defect in which the statute of limitations for disciplinary action had expired.”

However, the judgment of the second trial court was different.

The appellate court said, “The disciplinary regulations of the defendant union (Article 6, Paragraph 4) clearly state that ‘when a disciplinary action is invalidated or canceled by the court or the Labor Relations Commission, a disciplinary decision may be made again notwithstanding the statute of limitations.’ Since the disposition in this case is in the nature of a retrial after the previous disciplinary action was canceled by the decision of the Labor Relations Commission, it cannot be considered that the disciplinary action was taken after the statute of limitations period.”

He added, "While in charge of audit work, the plaintiff made a large financial transaction with the wrongdoing party, and based on this, he condoned the fact of embezzlement, causing damage to the union." He added, "Considering that the level of disciplinary action was reduced from the initial dismissal to a six-month suspension, it is difficult to view the defendant's disposition as an abuse of discretion."

The Supreme Court also deemed the original trial's decision to be justifiable and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.

Attorney Jo Ik-cheon of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented the union, said, "The first trial pointed out that the statute of limitations had expired, but this case was a 're-disciplinary' procedure that occurred as the previous disciplinary action was invalidated and canceled, so we expressed that the statute of limitations does not apply."

He added, “There was a good result as it proved that this was not a request for a new disciplinary decision, but a ‘modification’ of the legally requested decision.”

#Supreme Court #Disciplinary action #Statute of limitations #Accident

Shin Min-ji (sourminjee@ikbc.co.kr)

[View full article]
'Dismissal→Reinstatement→Re-discipline'...'Three disciplinary actions' over a 10-year period, the Supreme Court's final victory (link)