Court upholds reprimand of principal who forced new teachers to work until 9:30 p.m.

An appeals court has ruled that disciplinary action against an elementary school principal who forced newly transferred teachers to work until 9:30 p.m. was justified.

The Seoul High Court's Administrative Division 4-1, presided over by Judges Park Yeon-wook, Lee Gwang-man and Moon Gwang-seop, ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the principal, identified only as A, against the Education Ministry seeking to overturn a reprimand. The ruling upheld the first-instance decision.

In February 2024, A told a gathering of teachers, "All first-year teachers should be made to stay late." At a meeting held the same day, A also instructed newly transferred teachers to remain on duty until 9:30 p.m., secure the building and only then leave. An investigation found that the teachers did in fact stay at school late into the night.

A directed junior teachers to handle cleaning and event preparations as well, citing it as a longstanding tradition for less experienced staff to take on such duties. The matter came to light in June of that year when a post exposing workplace harassment appeared in an online community. A received a formal reprimand in November of that year.

The court focused on testimony from teachers that A had said it was necessary "to establish discipline." The panel also cited A's response when asked why first-year teachers needed to stay late — "Work can always be created" — as a basis for its ruling.

"The plaintiff, as principal, used their position of authority to pressure first-year teachers into overtime work they had no obligation to perform," the court said. "Even if the goal was the smooth operation of the school, it is difficult to justify a superior compelling a subordinate to work overtime against their will."

The court also upheld the disciplinary action, finding that A had knowingly maintained an unfair practice of assigning undesirable tasks to less experienced teachers. It rejected A's argument that the reprimand had effectively barred the possibility of serving a second term as principal.

A has appealed the ruling and the case is now pending before the Supreme Court.