Corporate specialist attorney | Defends a company that was the subject of an employee's application for remedy against unfair pay reduction, and the employee's application is dismissed

The client who came to the corporate specialist attorney was company A, which had been the subject of an application for remedy against unfair pay reduction filed by an employee.

The client stated that there was nothing at all unfair about the pay reduction and asked for help in having the employee's application dismissed.

In the corporate specialist attorney's client case, the employee had joined company A and was a team manager, and stated that he had received a disciplinary action of a two-month pay reduction on the ground of leaving his workplace without authorization during working hours.

However, the employee filed this application, claiming that this disposition was unfair.

He argued that the departure from the workplace was because a meeting with one of the team members was necessary and was conducted outside the company, and that therefore the disposition of a two-month pay reduction was an abuse of personnel authority and was unfair because the disciplinary measure was excessive.

Labor Standards Act

Article 23 (Restrictions on Dismissal, etc.) (1) An employer shall not, without justifiable reason, dismiss, lay off, suspend, transfer, reduce the pay of, or otherwise punish (懲罰) an employee (hereinafter referred to as “unfair dismissal, etc.”).

Article 28 (Application for Remedy against Unfair Dismissal, etc.) (1) Where an employer subjects an employee to unfair dismissal, etc., the employee may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy.

In the corporate specialist attorney's case, the applicant filed an application for remedy against the unfair pay reduction under the Labor Standards Act.

The corporate specialist attorney set out to defend in order to prove that the client had not imposed an unfair pay reduction.

In the corporate specialist attorney's client case, the applicant had, a few months earlier, not only left without authorization for a long time during working hours without reporting it, but also failed to respond to repeated contacts from colleagues and superiors.

On another day, although the lunch hour was set at one hour, he took a two-hour lunch without reporting it to a superior and spent personal time at a cafe during working hours.

Accordingly, the client delivered to the applicant a notice of a scheduled personnel committee meeting on the agenda of leaving the workplace.

The applicant submitted a written explanation, in which it was written that leaving the workplace without authorization was wrong, but that owing to the nature of the workplace he had no choice but to leave the workplace in order to conduct the meeting.

At the subsequently held personnel committee meeting, after deliberating on whether to discipline the applicant, the committee resolved on a disciplinary measure of a two-month pay reduction in accordance with the employment contract and personnel regulations and notified the applicant of the resolution.

The applicant claims that this pay reduction is excessive relative to the grounds, but company A already has a precedent of imposing a reprimand on the ground of six instances of tardiness, and the applicant's unauthorized departure from the workplace alone is sufficient to constitute grounds for a reprimand.

Beyond the two days of leaving the workplace, the applicant frequently left his seat for long periods without reporting it, and considering the effect of the applicant's conduct on other employees, it constitutes a serious cause attributable to him.

The facts of the unauthorized departure and other conduct in this case are themselves recognized in the employee's written explanation, the superior's statement, and the like, and the applicant's act of leaving the workplace for a long time without reporting it on his own arbitrary judgment cannot be justified and violates the company's personnel regulations, so treating it as a ground for discipline is justified.

After hearing the corporate specialist attorney's defense, the Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled as follows.

This was a case in which company A, despite having justifiably imposed a disciplinary action on the employee, was nonetheless the subject of an application for remedy against unfair pay reduction.

Through the corporate specialist attorney's defense, the applicant's application for remedy was dismissed.

If you find yourself in a situation similar to that of the client in this case, please entrust your case to Daeryun Law Firm.

Based on extensive data from favorable judgments, we will assist with your case through solid proof.