SK hynix worker who left business trips after 1 minute loses W950m lawsuit

SK hynix headquarters in Icheon, Gyeonggi Province. This photo is unrelated to the article. [Yonhap]

A court has ruled that SK hynix was justified in dismissing an employee who repeatedly logged excessive travel and transit times or abandoned his work site on 16 occasions over five months. The court found that the worker's conduct "undermined the foundation of SK hynix's flexible work system" and had a "significant impact on workplace order and the work environment."

According to legal sources, the Yeoju Branch of Suwon District Court's Civil Division 1, presided over by Judge Kim Jeong-seok, ruled against the former SK hynix employee, identified only as A, on July 8 in his lawsuit seeking to nullify his dismissal. A had demanded the court confirm his dismissal was void and order the company to pay approximately 950 million won ($670,000) in back wages and performance bonuses he would have received had he remained employed, but the court rejected all of his claims.

Fired for inflating business trip and transit hours

According to facts established by the court, the company's disciplinary committee dismissed A in 2021. An investigation found that during 23 of 30 business trips taken between January and June 2020, he had committed attendance violations — leaving a business trip destination after staying only one to 27 minutes, or claiming an average of five hours in transit time per trip.

A requested a review, but the appeals disciplinary committee upheld the dismissal. The number of confirmed violations was reduced to 19, but the outcome remained unchanged. A then filed for relief and review with the regional and National Labor Relations Commission, both of which also rejected his claims.

A subsequently filed a lawsuit to overturn the dismissal, and that case was ultimately decided against him. A court ruled in June 2023 that the dismissal was excessive, but an appellate court reversed that decision in October 2024, ruling against A. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate ruling in February last year.

A files new 950 million won suit claiming dismissal unlawful and void

A did not stop litigating. In March last year, he filed a new lawsuit against SK hynix on different grounds, arguing that his dismissal was unlawful and therefore void.

The court again ruled against him. It found that A had committed attendance violations on 16 occasions over five months beginning in January 2020 — somewhat fewer than the disciplinary committee had determined — but still concluded that the dismissal was justified.

On two occasions, A left a business trip destination after staying only two to 12 minutes before clocking out. On seven occasions, he logged 30 minutes to two hours of excess transit time. On five occasions, he left his assigned work site without authorization for two to five hours while on a business trip. On two further occasions, he claimed one hour to one hour and 10 minutes of excess travel time.

Throughout the proceedings, A maintained that none of the disciplinary grounds against him should be recognized.

His legal team argued that the original GPS data from the company vehicle was no longer available, that employee card-key access records did not constitute evidence of unauthorized absence, that meetings had been held in areas where card-key logging was not possible, that he had been checking on the status of partner companies, and that preparations for meetings inside his vehicle had caused the extended transit times. The court rejected all of these arguments.

A also argued that even if some of the disciplinary grounds were accepted, he had worked diligently for about 16 years and had received commendations. That argument was likewise rejected.

All claims dismissed — court cites damage to flexible work system

The court acknowledged that some of the alleged attendance violations were not proven and that A's commendations and other favorable circumstances warranted some consideration, but concluded that "his misconduct had damaged the mutual trust between the parties to a degree that made it impossible to continue the employment relationship, and the dismissal is therefore justified."

The court noted that A "committed attendance violations on 16 occasions over five months" and that the repeated nature of the conduct made it "difficult to regard as minor negligence." It added that the behavior "undermined the foundation of the flexible work system that SK hynix has operated since 2018, causing disruption to its establishment, and had a significant impact on workplace order and the work environment."

A statement submitted to the court by A's direct supervisor also weighed in the ruling. The supervisor wrote that "there is absolutely no reason to perform work at a different location during a business trip" and that colleagues had filed complaints saying A "almost never showed up at the site," prompting repeated warnings.

The court further noted that before his dismissal, A had already received a three-month pay cut in March 2019 for dereliction of duty and a reprimand in July 2020 for a separate reason, finding that "A's insincere attitude toward work seriously damaged the trust between him and the company."

A also sought damages from the company, but the court found "no evidence that the disciplinary action was taken as retaliation against A" and rejected that claim as well. All of A's claims were dismissed in their entirety.

The ruling has not yet been finalized. A has appealed, arguing the first-instance decision was unjust, and a second hearing is set to proceed.

notstrong@heraldcorp.com