Supervisor Who Forced Employees to Chant "I Want to Take Leave" Rightfully Dismissed

Court: "Complainants' Testimonies Are Specific and Factual"
Objective Evidence Such as CCTV and Audio Recordings Exists

The court has ruled that disciplinary dismissal of an employee who repeatedly bullied subordinates in the workplace, including physically assaulting them and making verbal threats, is not excessive.

According to the legal community on May 18, the Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 11 (Presiding Judge Kim Junyoung) ruled against the plaintiff (Mr. A) in a lawsuit filed by Mr. A seeking to overturn the Central Labor Relations Commission’s decision to dismiss his claim for relief from unfair dismissal.

Mr. A, who joined a regional Saemaeul Geumgo in 1998, was a manager-level employee who had served as the head of the loan department and was responsible for post-loan management since 2022. In March 2023, a subordinate, Mr. B, reported Mr. A’s workplace bullying to the Saemaeul Geumgo Federation. The Federation ordered the branch to suspend Mr. A from his position, investigate the facts, and establish measures to prevent recurrence. The branch then commissioned an external labor law firm to conduct the investigation.

Court. Asia Economy DB

The investigation found that Mr. A had repeatedly demanded that subordinates show him their personal bank accounts and made remarks such as "Are you a beggar?" He also forced employees to chant "I really want to eat" before meals and "I really want to go" before taking leave. Mr. A claimed that he was merely correcting his subordinates for a lack of basic manners. He also repeatedly demanded that Mr. B show his personal bank account and made comments such as "Are you a beggar?"

The investigation further revealed that Mr. A told others not to speak to an employee who had transferred from the branch office to the headquarters, saying that the employee’s spirit needed to be broken. He also swung his fist at another employee, telling a colleague, "You take the punishment instead," simply because the employee had taken annual leave.

Additionally, Mr. A reportedly engaged in threatening behavior by driving his car rapidly toward subordinates and then stopping suddenly or swerving the steering wheel just before a collision.

Following the investigation, the Federation instructed the branch to take follow-up measures to protect the victims and to dismiss Mr. A for disciplinary reasons. The branch dismissed Mr. A in July of the same year. Mr. A then filed a petition with the Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming that his suspension and dismissal were unfair, but his petition was denied. He appealed to the Central Labor Relations Commission, but the outcome was the same.

Mr. A subsequently filed an administrative lawsuit, arguing that the statements of the complainants were not credible, that there was no objective evidence, and that the external investigation agency had conducted a biased investigation in order to establish grounds for disciplinary action.

However, the court did not side with Mr. A. The court found that the complainants’ statements were highly specific and consistent, and that there was objective evidence to support the grounds for disciplinary action.

The court stated, "The complainants who testified to being victims of workplace bullying by the plaintiff (Mr. A) provided details that would be difficult to recount without direct experience. Objective evidence, such as CCTV footage of the plaintiff forcing a subordinate to show his personal bank account, CCTV footage and audio recordings of the plaintiff swinging his fist and saying, 'You take the punishment instead,' support some of the grounds for disciplinary action."

The court also rejected Mr. A’s argument that some of the grounds for disciplinary action were legitimate work instructions.

The court stated, "The plaintiff’s actions are not directly related to work and cannot be considered acceptable by social standards. The complainants reported psychological distress as a result of the plaintiff’s actions, and some received medication for symptoms such as anxiety and depression. It is recognized that the plaintiff’s conduct seriously undermined the organizational culture and work environment."

The court further pointed out, "Since the complainants reported their victimization, and throughout these proceedings, the plaintiff has denied any wrongdoing and has shown no recognition of the seriousness of the matter."