A bank manager who was transferred to another position먹튀검증 for reasons such as discriminating against employees from a certain region and shifting responsibility for poor performance to a window employee filed an appeal, but lost the case in the Supreme Court.
According to multiple media reports on the 1st, the third division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge Oh Seok-joon) confirmed the lower court on the 13th of last month, ruling against the plaintiff in the lawsuit for invalidating the telegram filed by Mr. A against his bank.
Mr. A, who worked as a bank branch manager (deputy manager level), was transferred to a business promotion position in the business department in July 2018. He was a person under the ‘backward placement system’, which assigns employees with poor sales performance or insufficient management skills to back office (support work) and decides whether or not to return to the field based on their performance.
The basis was an anonymous survey of employees for Mr. A, a report on the inspection of the personnel department, and the results of the comprehensive work evaluation. In the employee survey, it was reported that “Mr. A has a severe prejudice against Jeolla-do and is excessively disliked and wary of people from the region.”
It was said that when a team leader from Jeonbuk took office, he strongly requested a replacement, and if the sales partner was from Jeolla-do, he acted discriminatoryly, such as reviewing loans as conservatively as possible. There was also a report that he often revealed his political tendencies, such as claiming that the ‘5·18 democratization movement was carried out by North Korea’ while on duty .
In the inspection report, it was written that “it discriminates against employees and reduces the working atmosphere of the branch and the morale of employees with authoritative and communication-less leadership.” While serving as his branch manager, his overall work rating was at the bottom of the list.
In response, Mr. A filed a lawsuit claiming that the telegram order was unfair. He argued that while the need for a transfer order was not recognized because there was no problem with his work ability, there were significant disadvantages in life, such as a 20% reduction in his annual salary.
But the court sided with the bank. The first trial said, “The plaintiff lacked competence and leadership as a branch manager,” and “it is judged that there was a business need to order a telegram to renovate the work atmosphere and boost morale of the branch employees.”
It was judged that there was no significant disadvantage in life. Only the position was changed, the rank remained the same, the reduction in salary was only the subtraction of the branch manager’s job allowance, and the basis was that the new work place was closer to the residence than the old work place.
Mr. A appealed, but was not accepted. The Supreme Court also dismissed Mr. A’s appeal, saying, “The judgment of the lower court was justified.”
