Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 3: Entity Eligible for Remedy and Need for Remedy, etc.
2. Extinction of Need for Remedy
2.4 Extinction of Need for Remedy for Suspension With Pay Upon Disciplinary Action Following It
| Supreme Court, September 26, 1997, Decision 97da25590 | |||||
| * Plaintiff/Appellee: A
* Defendant/Appellant: Gwangju Donggu Medical Insurance Association 1. Facts: a. On August 22, 1992, the Defendant association suspended the Plaintiff, who was an employee, from his position for leaving the workplace, damaging dignity, and violating work regulations while a disciplinary decision was pending. Subsequently, on September 8,1992, the Plaintiff was dismissed for reasons that were recognized as identical to those for the suspension. b. The Plaintiff filed an unfair dismissal remedy application and received a reinstatement order from the Labor Commission, which recognized the dismissal as unfair. The Plaintiff was reinstated on August 1,1996. 2. Court Judgment: a. Removal from a position (regarded as suspension with pay in this Case ) is generally a provisional measure intended to prevent anticipated work-related obstacles if the employee continues in their position. This occurs in Case s where the employee lacks sufficient job performance ability, has poor work performance or attitude, is undergoing disciplinary proceedings, or is indicted in a criminal Case . If an employee is suspended and subsequently dismissed for the same reasons, the dismissal nullifies the original removal from the position. b. In Case s where an employee was dismissed for the same reasons as a prior suspension but was reinstated following a Labor Commission's order, the wages from the time of dismissal to reinstatement should be calculated based on the wages under normal working conditions, without considering the initial suspension. |
|||||
| Download : 대법 97다25590.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents