Train Driver Who Failed to Report Under Revised Schedule... Court: "Removal from Post Was Justified"

"Refusing three orders to report for work constitutes deliberate noncompliance"
"Schedule changes fall within the company's legitimate authority to direct work"

A court has ruled that it was justified for a company to remove a train driver from his post after he refused three orders to report for work under a revised schedule and instead followed the previous schedule.

According to legal sources on November 16, the Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 1, presided over by Judge Yang Sang-yoon, ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Train Driver A, an employee of public corporation B, seeking to overturn the Central Labor Relations Commission chairperson's decision dismissing his request for relief from removal from his post. The court said, "The order to report for work under the revised schedule was a legitimate work order," adding that "repeatedly refusing to comply constitutes grounds for removal from one's post."

Seoul Administrative Court. The Asia Business Daily DB.

Train drivers at B worked under a rotating-shift system, in which their starting and finishing times and daily working hours varied from one workday to another. The company prepared work schedules every three months, and the drivers reported for work accordingly. In 2024, to cover additional labor costs related to ordinary wages, B agreed with the labor union and others to cut overtime pay by 60% from the previous year. The company later abolished standby duty at the office, which had been assigned to cover staff shortages or temporary train services, and revised some existing work schedules.

A argued that changing the schedule without the union's consent was unjustified and refused orders to report for work under the revised schedule. He failed to report at the designated time on three occasions and instead reported according to the previous schedule. B removed him from his post on that basis. After his requests for relief were successively rejected by the Labor Relations Commission and the Central Labor Relations Commission, A filed a lawsuit.

The court found that the schedule changes did not violate the labor-management agreement. It held that the term "working hours," which the collective agreement required the company to determine in consultation with the union, referred only to prescribed working hours and did not include specific workdays or starting and finishing times. Even after abolishing the standby duty system, B maintained 96 days off per year and the prescribed working hours, and reduced only overtime hours, as agreed by labor and management. The court therefore found that the schedule changes and the resulting orders to report for work fell within the company's legitimate authority to direct work.

The court also found that A's repeated refusal to comply with legitimate orders to report for work constituted grounds for removal from his post. If a train driver fails to report at the designated time, it can disrupt the deployment of train crews, including by requiring substitute staff. At the time, the union had issued action guidelines, and the court said that if refusals to report for work spread, they could disrupt train operations overall. It described the conduct as "significantly contrary to the interests of the corporation."

The court also found that A qualified as a person with "extremely poor work performance" under the personnel regulations. It held that work performance includes not only job results but also work attitude. Since reporting at the designated time is a basic duty of train drivers on a rotating-shift system, the court found that his refusal to comply with three orders to report for work constituted deliberate and repeated failure to follow work instructions.

The court also found that the disadvantages resulting from A's removal from his post were not excessive. B's personnel regulations limit the period of removal from a post to a maximum of six months and require payment of 80% of base salary during that period. B also ordered A's reinstatement once his removal from the post had lasted six months. The court  "said, "The disadvantages A suffered in his daily life were not excessive in light of the business necessity for his removal from the post."

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