"Police Officer's Pay Cut for Ordering 'Buy Lotto from the Convenience Store with the Most First-Prize Winners' Deemed Lawful"

Court Points Out "Workplace Harassment"

A court ruling has determined that it was lawful to impose a pay reduction on a police officer who repeatedly ordered subordinates to run personal errands such as buying lottery tickets or cigarettes and unjustly restricted their use of leave.

The Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 11 (Presiding Judge Kim Jun-young) recently ruled against police officer A in a lawsuit seeking to cancel the pay reduction imposed by the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency chief, according to Yonhap News on the 14th. In December 2022, A received a two-month pay reduction for violating the duties of diligence and maintaining dignity under the National Public Service Act. The disciplined officer filed a lawsuit last year, claiming the measure was unfair.

During the investigation, it was confirmed that A ordered subordinates to run nine personal errands, including telling them to "stop by a convenience store where many first-prize lottery winners come and buy a lottery ticket," instructing them to pick up his laundry from the dry cleaner, and to get cigarettes. Even when the employee assigned to buy the lottery ticket expressed refusal, saying "the convenience store is popular and requires waiting over 30 minutes," A reportedly insisted on the order.

It was also found that A refused approval of leave requests from subordinates on the grounds that they had not reported in person beforehand. Furthermore, when complaints from subordinates about work were reported to higher-ups, A threatened an employee by saying, "There are no secrets in the police organization. I will track this down to the end and will not let it go."

During the trial, A argued, "The subordinates voluntarily and willingly ran the errands, and I did not unjustly restrict the use of annual leave."

However, the court did not accept A's claims. The court stated, "A's orders were beyond the scope of official duties and constituted an abuse of superior position by forcing victims to perform tasks they were not obligated to do," and judged this as a "justifiable disciplinary reason."

Additionally, the court pointed out, "A unjustifiably hindered employees' free use of annual leave and made remarks containing profanity or implying personnel disadvantages." It added, "Such 'workplace harassment' or 'gapjil behavior' not only causes continuous mental distress to subordinates but also undermines harmony within the organization, thereby hindering proactive work performance, highlighting the need for corrective measures."

Meanwhile, the 'Workplace Harassment Prohibition Act,' enacted through the amendment of the Labor Standards Act in July 2019, prohibits acts that use positional or relational superiority to inflict physical or mental suffering beyond appropriate work boundaries or worsen the working environment for other workers. When such acts causing physical or mental distress are discovered in a company, the employer must immediately discipline the perpetrator.