"All First-Year Teachers Must Stay Until 9:30 p.m." ... The Fate of a Principal Who Forced Them to Work Late

Ordered teachers to work late, saying "Discipline must be established"
Court recognizes "unfair pressure to work overtime"

An appellate court has ruled that disciplinary action against an elementary school principal who forced first-year teachers to work late into the night was justified.

According to Yonhap News and legal circles on the 14th, the Seoul High Court's Administrative Division 4-1 (Presiding Judges Park Yeonuk, Lee Gwangman, and Moon Gwangseop) ruled against A, as did the lower court, in a lawsuit A filed against the Minister of Education seeking to have a reprimand overturned.

The Seoul Court Complex, home to the Seoul High Court, in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Yonhap News.

A, principal of an elementary school in the Daegu area, received a reprimand in November 2024 for forcing newly transferred teachers in their first year on the job to work at night and instructing them to clean and prepare for events. A reprimand is the lightest form of disciplinary action for public officials, but it can bring disadvantages, including in promotions, for a certain period.

According to an investigation by the Special Disciplinary Committee for Educational Public Officials at the time, A said at a gathering of teachers, including the head of the academic affairs department, in February 2024, "All first-year teachers should be made to stay late." At a meeting the same day attended by the vice principal and others, A also instructed them, "For the time being, all newly transferred teachers should work until 9:30 p.m., lock up the building, and then leave."

As a result, the newly transferred teachers were found to have stayed at school and worked until 9:30 p.m. A also told them to handle tasks such as cleaning and event preparation, claiming it was a tradition for teachers with less work experience to take on such duties.

The matter became public in June of the same year, after a teacher posted an exposé on an online community saying, "I can no longer put up with workplace bullying."

In May, the first-instance court ruled against A, who had filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the reprimand. The appellate court reached the same conclusion. It rejected A's claim that the purpose was to "encourage first-year teachers to take responsibility and participate in school operations."

Based on testimony from teachers, among other evidence, the court cited A's statement at a gathering of teachers that "discipline must be established" and A's response, "You can always make work," when another attendee asked why first-year teachers had to stay late.

The court said, "The plaintiff, as principal, used the authority of the position to urge first-year teachers to work overtime when they were under no obligation to do so," adding, "Even if the aim was to ensure the smooth operation of the school, it is difficult to justify a superior urging subordinates to work overtime against their will."

The court also criticized A, saying, "A is a senior education official responsible for directing and supervising school staff and serving as a role model for teachers and students," and that A "knowingly maintained an unfair practice of assigning menial tasks to teachers with little work experience and engaged in conduct that constitutes grounds for disciplinary action." The court also rejected A's claim that the disciplinary action had made it difficult to serve another term as principal, saying, "Receiving a reprimand does not, by itself, make it impossible to serve again as a principal."

A appealed the appellate court's ruling to the Supreme Court.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.