Suit to cancel a review decision on unfair dismissal relief over the disciplinary dismissal of a metro union officer

A dispute arose over the legitimacy of the discipline after an urban rail corporation dismissed a labor union officer for obstructing train operator practical training and making insulting remarks about management, among other grounds.

The union officer argued that his conduct was legitimate union activity that occurred while protesting the employer's violations of the Labor Standards Act, and that dismissal was excessively harsh.

Attorney Jaehoon Lee represented the urban rail corporation before the Supreme Court of Korea in the suit to cancel the review decision on unfair dismissal relief.

The key issues were whether obstruction of work and insulting conduct toward management in the course of union activities fell within the scope of legitimate union activity, and whether disciplinary dismissal for that conduct was justified under generally accepted social norms.

Other issues were the obligation to pay overtime for train operator practical training hours and the interpretation of the related collective agreement, and whether a judgment rendered in a separate wage lawsuit affected the assessment of whether the dismissal was justified.

Attorney Lee reviewed the facts and evidence for each ground for discipline and the law on the legitimacy of union activities and the appropriate level of discipline, and responded to the grounds of the appeal to the Supreme Court.

In particular, he analyzed how the obstruction of practical training and the blocking of a training train's route occurred and how dangerous they were, as well as witness testimony and voice analysis results concerning the insulting remarks about management, to argue that the grounds for discipline were serious.

He also reviewed the collective agreement on the flexible working hours system and practical training hours and the judgment in the related wage lawsuit, and argued that the judgment was not a change in circumstances that would negate the justification for the disciplinary dismissal.

On that basis, he emphasized that the purpose of union activity must be distinguished from the legitimacy of each individual act of misconduct, and argued before the Supreme Court that the lower court's judgment upholding the dismissal should be affirmed.