A court has ruled that it was lawful to dismiss a train manager on the Suseo High Speed Railway (SRT) who took home cash and other valuables left behind by a passenger instead of turning them in to the lost-and-found office.
Administrative Division 1 of the Seoul Administrative Court, presided over by Chief Judge Yang Sang-yoon, ruled last month in favor of SR, the former operator of the SRT, in a lawsuit against the chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission seeking to overturn a review ruling on unfair dismissal relief, according to legal sources on the 19th.
The employee, identified only as A, worked as a train manager on SRT trains, handling duties such as checking for remaining passengers and lost items on board. The case arose after A picked up items a passenger had left on a seat and took them home rather than turning them in to the lost-and-found office. The items included 1.2 million won ($840), 4,000 Japanese yen, a wallet worth 550,000 won, a credit card and a pair of wireless earphones. A was investigated over the incident but received a suspended indictment.
SR's audit review committee subsequently called for A to be suspended. The disciplinary committee ultimately voted for dismissal. A then filed for unfair dismissal relief with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, which granted the request. The commission took into account that the audit review committee had recommended suspension, that A had returned the items to the owner and that A had no prior disciplinary record. SR applied to the National Labor Relations Commission for a review, and when that was rejected, filed an administrative lawsuit.
The court found the commission's review ruling unlawful, saying the dismissal imposed by SR could not be seen as an excessive measure that exceeded or abused the company's discretion in disciplinary matters. The court stressed that the misconduct was serious in that A had used authority granted in the course of duty to obtain financial gain. It also took into account that A had denied picking up the items when police first made contact.
"A received a call asking whether A had picked up the lost items and denied it, and only admitted doing so eight days later after police said they had checked CCTV footage from inside the train," the court said. In light of these circumstances, the court found that A had committed embezzlement in the course of duty intentionally.
The court also based its decision on the fact that under SR's disciplinary rules, A's conduct could have warranted discharge, the harshest disciplinary category, which is one level above dismissal. "Imposing dismissal in this case, one step below the disciplinary standard, does not exceed the scope of the disciplinary guidelines," the court said.
"SR has paid close attention to the handling of lost property, establishing separate rules on lost items and providing staff training on procedures for handling items that are found, in order to maintain and enhance its external credibility," the court said. "A's embezzlement in the course of duty significantly damaged the company's credibility and constitutes serious misconduct that renders the lost-property management system meaningless." The ruling indicated there was a need to dismiss A in order to establish order in the lost-property management system.