Court Rules Reassignment of Employee Accused of Workplace Stalking Was Lawful

A lower court has ruled that the Korea Railroad Corporation (KORAIL) acted lawfully when it reassigned an employee following a report that he had been stalking a colleague.
The Seoul Administrative Court, under Presiding Judge Ho Seong-ho of the 3rd Administrative Division, ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by A, a vehicle maintenance worker at KORAIL, against the chair of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The plaintiff had sought to overturn a decision to dismiss his request for relief from what he claimed was an unfair personnel transfer.
In June 2024, KORAIL received a formal grievance report from an employee alleging that A had been stalking them.
In response, KORAIL transferred A to a different work location the following month to separate him from the complainant.
A filed for relief against the personnel transfer, but his request was rejected by both the local labor relations commission and subsequently the NLRC, leading him to file an administrative lawsuit with the court.
A argued that he had merely misunderstood that the complainant had feelings for him and had asked if he could call, but ceased all actions after the complainant refused. He contended that his behavior did not constitute stalking and that the personnel transfer violated the presumption of innocence.
However, the court upheld the NLRC’s decision to dismiss his request for relief, finding it to be lawful.
The court stated, "Under the Stalking Prevention Act, even before stalking is legally established, if a report is filed, appropriate measures such as changing the work location or reassigning the employee can be taken as temporary or provisional measures, considering the victim's wishes and the need for protection. If it is later determined that the stalking did not occur, these protective measures can be terminated."
The court further noted that, based on the complainant's statement regarding A's contact attempts and the content of the remarks A made to the complainant that day, there was sufficient reason to fear that A's behavior might be repeated. Therefore, the court concluded that KORAIL's actions were justified by operational necessity.
(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.