An environmental sanitation worker clears fallen leaves on Jeongdong-gil, Jung-gu, Seoul. / Correspondent Junheon Lee
An environmental sanitation worker who was fired for the so-called ‘dadabang’ act of collecting illegally left waste and received compensation filed a lawsuit seeking unemployment benefits, but lost at the first trial.
Judge Jung Woo-yong of the 8th administrative court of the Seoul Administrative Court announced on the 8th that he had ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the North Branch of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Administration by Mr.
Mr A was fired in April 2021 after receiving 32,000 won from residents for collecting waste on a large scale that was dumped without permission. The act of disposing of waste that is discharged without using a volume rate system bag or without a certificate of payment and receipt of compensation is called ‘Ttabang’ in slang among sanitation workers. He later applied for unemployment benefits to the Labor Office, but was refused. The Labor Office found that Mr A was subject to restrictions on eligibility for benefits under the Insurance Act as ‘a person who was dismissed for embezzling public funds or breach of duty by using his office’.
When the request for re-examination was refused, Mr A filed administrative legal proceedings in July last year. In the trial, Mr. argued. A, “It was nothing more than a ‘date off’ action considering a junior in financial difficulty at a junior’s request, and it does not come under the case of causing a massive disruption to the employer’s business or causing damage to property. ” He also said that of the 32,000 earned through the act of ‘dating off’, the amount he got in the end was only 16,000 earned. Mr. A was investigated by the North Seoul District Prosecutor’s Office for this case and received a deferred indictment for the crime of breach of trust.
The court ruled that the Labor Office’s decision not to pay unemployment benefits to Mr A was legal. If the reason for the dismissal is misconduct, it falls under the reason for limiting eligibility for benefits, and it is not necessary that the damage caused by Mr A to the company be ‘exceptional’ . The judge said, “The act of loitering is done on the premise of an illegal or unfair relationship with residents, and (Mr A’s action) is not only an act of breach of trust for the company, but also an act which interferes with the lawful implementation of national environmental policies.”
The judge continued, “It is difficult to say that Mr. A’s act is not an act which will cause a huge obstacle to the company’s business simply because the amount corresponding to the act found is small. ” He would have took extra time, so the plaintiff’s (Mr. A) breach of duty caused damage to the company’s property.”
> Activate JavaScript to write a comment in LiveRe.
