Dismissed on six disciplinary grounds including workplace misconduct and negligence; court upholds termination as lawful while appeal is pending
![Court [Herald Business DB]](https://wimg.heraldcorp.com/news/cms/2026/06/06/news-p.v1.20260603.542852a55a1e46c5af85d125d809b14c_P1.jpg)
"Stop inciting the employees. Are you buying them coffee on orders from the union chairman to win them over?"
— Employee A, a Korea Electric Power Corp. worker who secretly filmed colleagues while claiming to monitor whether they were being coerced into joining a union
A court has ruled that Korea Electric Power Corp. was justified in firing an employee who secretly filmed coworkers while claiming to watch for union membership coercion. The court upheld all six disciplinary grounds cited by the state-run utility — including verbal and physical assault against supervisors, workplace negligence and the unauthorized use of colleagues' personal information.
The Seoul Western District Court's Civil Division 11, presided over by Judge Gu Gwang-hyeon, ruled against employee A in mid-April in a lawsuit A filed against KEPCO. A had sought to have the dismissal declared void and to recover approximately 9 million won ($5,890) in unpaid monthly wages for each month between termination and reinstatement. The court rejected all of A's claims and ordered A to bear the litigation costs.
According to the court, A was dismissed in 2023. An internal KEPCO audit found six separate grounds for disciplinary action.
KEPCO determined that A had secretly filmed employees while claiming to monitor whether they were being pressured to join a union. A also directed profanity at supervisors — including a department head and deputy head who had assigned work — and shoved one of them. A was also found to have refused in-house training without justification, neglected assigned duties and used colleagues' personal information without authorization.
In April 2024, A filed suit challenging the dismissal.
During the trial, A argued that none of the six disciplinary grounds should be recognized.
On the secret filming, A said the conduct was "justified as evidence-gathering for a public-interest purpose." On the verbal and physical assault, A claimed supervisors and witnesses had given false testimony. On the remaining grounds, A argued that "refusing unreasonable orders is legitimate and therefore not a disciplinary matter," and that supervisors' accounts were exaggerated and distorted.
The court rejected all of A's arguments and upheld all six disciplinary grounds cited by KEPCO.
On the secret filming, the court found that employees had raised their voices and caused a commotion while trying to stop A, and that colleagues who had simply been spending an ordinary lunch break suffered significant distress. Junior staff, the court noted, reported anxiety about being watched even during rest periods.
On the verbal and physical assault, the court said statements from supervisors and witnesses were consistent with the alleged misconduct, specific in detail and free of contradictions or implausibilities. The court added that it could find no motive for those witnesses to give false testimony against A, and on that basis found their accounts credible.
On the remaining grounds, the court said A's conduct could not be considered justified or exempt from liability even if it had originated from a public-interest purpose such as calling for improvements to workplace systems.
The court also found that imposing the most severe disciplinary penalty — dismissal — was lawful. It said the breakdown of KEPCO's employment relationship with A was attributable to A's own conduct.
The court said A had committed multiple acts of misconduct over a considerable period, seriously undermining the workplace environment, and that A's repeated refusal to follow work instructions and persistent negligence had caused significant disruption. It added that complaints had been filed on multiple occasions over A's demeaning and disparaging remarks and the manner in which A dealt with customers.
The court went on to say that given KEPCO's special status as a public institution whose credibility on transparent and fair operations is of paramount importance, A's conduct was of a very serious nature and warranted strong censure.
The court concluded that the dismissal was lawful and valid, citing A's prior disciplinary record — including a reprimand for assaulting a colleague and for improper conduct, and a three-month pay cut for providing money to a work-related party.
The ruling is not yet final. A appealed on May 17, the day after the first-instance verdict was handed down. The case is now pending before the Seoul High Court.
notstrong@heraldcorp.com
