SRT Cabin Manager Took Passenger’s Luxury Wallet and Cash Home ... Court Says Dismissal Was Justified

[Financial News] A court has ruled that the dismissal of an SRT cabin manager who took home a passenger’s luxury wallet, cash and other items left behind on a train instead of turning them in to the lost-and-found center was justified.
According to Yonhap News, Newsis and other outlets on the 19th, the Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 1, presided over by Judge Yang Sang-yoon, ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by SR Co., Ltd. seeking to overturn the Central Labor Relations Commission’s decision on review in a case concerning relief for unfair dismissal.
In February 2024, A, who worked as an SRT train cabin manager, received from a cleaner a bag that a passenger had left on a seat while checking for passengers remaining on board and lost property. The bag contained a luxury wallet, 1.2 million won in cash and wireless earbuds. A, however, took the bag home instead of handing it over to the lost-and-found center.
The Gwangju Regional Railroad Special Judicial Police later referred A to prosecutors on suspicion of embezzlement. The Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office at the time acknowledged the alleged facts but suspended prosecution, citing that A was a first-time offender, had confessed and had reached a settlement with the victim, among other factors.
In July of the same year, SR’s disciplinary committee voted to dismiss A. A then filed a request for relief from unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the dismissal was unjustified.
After the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission granted A’s request for relief and the Central Labor Relations Commission subsequently rejected the request for review, SR filed an administrative lawsuit.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling that disciplinary action against an employee is generally at the discretion of the authority imposing it, and is unlawful only if it has manifestly lost its validity under social norms, the court ruled in SR’s favor, saying, “It is difficult to find that the dismissal was unlawful as an excessive measure that exceeded the discretion to impose disciplinary action.”
The court noted, “By taking the lost property home and embezzling it, A used authority granted in the course of duty to obtain a financial benefit, making the misconduct serious,” and added, “A’s work-related embezzlement seriously damaged SR’s credibility and constituted serious misconduct that undermined the lost-property management system.”
The court continued, “The relationship of trust between SR and A was damaged to the point that continued employment was no longer possible,” and said, “SR also had a need to establish order in its lost-property management system by imposing a severe punishment on A.”
The court further ruled, “Under SR’s disciplinary rules, the penalty standard of ‘removal’ applies when misconduct is serious and intentional,” adding, “The plaintiff’s decision to impose dismissal, one level less severe than the penalty prescribed by the standards, did not exceed the scope of those standards.”
[email protected] Kim Su-yeon Reporter