Engineer approved for union activity leave then traveled abroad

Argued structural factors were to blame, not personal misconduct

Court rules against engineer, citing 'severely lacking' awareness of wrongdoing

This image is for illustrative purposes only and is not directly related to the article. [Getty Images Bank]
This image is for illustrative purposes only and is not directly related to the article. [Getty Images Bank]

A court has ruled that a one-month suspension handed to a Korail train engineer who went on an overseas trip instead of reporting for union duties during approved leave was justified.

According to legal sources, Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 14, presided over by Judge Lee Sang-deok, ruled against the engineer, identified only as A, on Oct. 22 in a lawsuit seeking to overturn a disciplinary ruling. A had sued Korail to have the one-month suspension lifted. The court also ordered A to bear the litigation costs.

A had received a three-month suspension in May last year. The engineer had obtained two days of so-called "work cooperation" leave in March 2024, citing preparations for a labor-management council meeting, but was found to have traveled abroad during that time with no connection to union business. The work cooperation system allows employees to engage in union activities during regular working hours.

A contested the disciplinary action and requested a review. A disciplinary review committee reduced the penalty to a one-month suspension but upheld the discipline itself. A then filed suit in April.

During the trial, A's legal team argued that "there were structural factors that meant the misconduct could not be attributed solely to the individual's own responsibility."

Specifically, A argued that union meeting schedules required all participants to coordinate dates, leaving no room to make changes unilaterally. A also said personal leave had been taken the day before meetings to manage work-related fatigue, and that work cooperation leave had effectively come to be used as personal leave in exchange for that arrangement.

The court rejected the arguments.

The panel said it was "clear that these circumstances cannot justify deceiving the employer and traveling abroad on work cooperation days," and that "such arguments show that A intentionally misused the work cooperation system." The court added that the case demonstrated "a severely lacking awareness of the illegality of the conduct."

The court also noted that much of the evidence submitted was identical to what had already been presented before the labor commission, and that A's arguments were largely unchanged.

On the severity of the penalty, the court said it was "sufficiently reasonable and acceptable," adding that Korail's disciplinary standards "appear to fall within the scope of discretionary authority as a rational policy for a public enterprise to fulfill its social responsibilities."

The ruling has not yet been finalized, as the deadline for A to file an appeal has not passed.


notstrong@heraldcorp.com