jasdooit

A court has decided that punishing a public employee only for criticizing a lower-ranking colleague in a public area violates the duty to uphold dignity and is therefore unlawful.

The Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 13 (led by Presiding Judge Jin Hyun-seop) stated on the 4th that it decided in favor of the plaintiff in a legal case brought by a public official affiliated with the Ministry of Justice against the Minister of Justice, seeking to revoke a reprimand (warning) disciplinary measure.

The case occurred while A was working as the director of an agency within the Immigration and Foreigners Office. In July 2023, while dealing with a situation involving foreign crew members who left the country without authorization, team leader B and others issued immigration violation review decision documents to the crew on-site without conducting a separate investigation, opting for a ‘warning’ approach. Later that same month, on the 26th, A questioned B for approximately 15 minutes in front of other office staff about the details of visiting the ship without following the proper investigation procedures and issuing the review decision documents.

The Ministry of Justice stated that during this process, A did not heed B’s proposal to address the issue in the director’s office on three occasions and publicly reprimanded him for approximately 15 minutes, using a harsh tone and treating him in a dehumanizing way, which breached the obligation to uphold dignity as outlined in the State Public Officials Act. As a result, on June 18, 2024, A was given a reprimand (warning) as a disciplinary measure. In July of the same year, A submitted an appeal to the Appeals Review Committee seeking to revoke the disciplinary action, but it was rejected, resulting in the legal action.

A stated, as mentioned in the disciplinary resolution document, that he did not raise his voice or speak in an informal manner, but simply described the work conditions within the boundaries of social norms. He further contended that the disciplinary measure was overly severe, leading to substantial negative consequences such as the denial of performance bonuses, poor job evaluations, and the loss of chances for international assignments.

As a reply, the Ministry of Justice mentioned that based on an inspection investigation, several employees reported that A reprimanded B in front of others for more than 10 minutes using a loud tone, leading to B experiencing significant mental distress that necessitated psychiatric treatment.

The court decided in favor of A. The court mentioned, “There is no sign that A used casual language or made comments that could harm B’s dignity,” and determined that “there is not enough evidence to consider A’s behavior as a breach of the obligation to uphold dignity.”

According to the recorded discussion between the two individuals, the court stated, “It does not seem that A spoke in a manner that would cause the other party to feel threatened based on societal standards,” and further noted, “As the director, A seems to have verified the conditions and context of the work management within an appropriate range, and there is no indication that he overly criticized B.”