'Don't try to explain yourself to me,' pressure to arrive early also recognized as harassment; district office official's appeal to overturn pay cut rejected
When an employee sought to take annual leave to care for a child, a supervisor told the worker to "have your husband watch the kids." When another employee tried to brief the supervisor on work matters, the response was: "Don't try to explain yourself to me." A court has ruled that such remarks crossed the line from legitimate workplace instruction into harassment.
According to legal sources Sunday, the Seoul Administrative Court's 12th Administrative Division, presided over by Chief Judge Kang Jae-won, recently ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by A, a former district office official, seeking to overturn a pay-cut disciplinary action imposed by the head of a Seoul district office. A had been penalized for workplace harassment of subordinates and sued, arguing the punishment was unjust.
The court found that A's remarks cutting off a subordinate's explanation during a work briefing amounted to "not a work instruction, but a rebuke of the employee's manner of speaking that blocked reporting and explanation." The court said the remarks could have placed undue pressure on the employee and created a chilling effect on the work environment.
The court also took issue with A telling an employee with no attendance problems, "You came in late — what time did you get here?" The panel interpreted the remark not as pointing out an actual instance of tardiness, but as signaling an expectation that the employee arrive earlier than the standard start time.
The remark telling an employee who wanted to take annual leave for child care to leave the child with a spouse was found to have made it harder for the worker to exercise the legitimate right to annual leave and to have intruded into personal matters unrelated to work.
A argued the remarks were made in the course of correcting subordinates' repeated failure to follow instructions and neglect of duties, and were no more than ordinary conversation. The court, however, found that the content and context of the remarks constituted workplace harassment.
"Considering the importance of the public interest in preventing workplace harassment and establishing discipline in the public sector, the pay-cut penalty cannot be seen as excessive relative to the misconduct," the court said, ruling that the level of discipline was appropriate.
attom@heraldcorp.com
