Sanofi firing employee for playing golf is unfair dismissal

Labor Relations Commissions accepts request for remedy, orders the company to reinstate

Understandable reasoning, but level of disciplinary action was excessive, an abuse of power

A government organization has decided a salesperson fired by Sanofi Pasteur for playing golf with his colleagues during their working time was unfair dismissal.

 

Following the decision made by Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission in 2019, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has accepted “Manager A”’s request for unfair dismissal remedy claim on Jan.

 

20 regarding Sanofi Pasteur dismissing the employee for violating the Compliance Program.

 

The Commission ordered, “Sanofi should immediately reinstate the employee as it was an unfair dismissal.” Manager A, who used to work at Chungcheong and Honam regional team of Sanofi Pasteur, went out to play golf with his colleagues as proposed by then sales executive director for two days in September 2018.

 

And on the day of the rounding, the employee submitted a call report and received a daily pay of 36,000 won.

 

In July 2019, Sanofi Pasteur sent a notice of termination to Manager A for violating the Global Code of Ethics.

 

But Manager A argued the disciplinary action of termination was excessive and requested for unfair dismissal remedy to Regional Labor Relations Commission.

 

The Labor Commission acknowledged the claim and accepted the remedy request.

 

Although Sanofi Pasteur filed an appeal for the decision, NLRC also sided with Manager A.

 

In the ruling, NLRC stated “Sanofi Pasteur’s Code of Ethics regulates disciplinary actions vastly ranging from training, verbal warning, written warning, change of assignment, termination of employment, and civil and criminal law suit.

 

However, dismissing Manager A for violating the Code of Ethics and not considering other disciplinary actions is an abuse of power.” “The reason for termination is understandable, but it is difficult to say his action was intentional or ill-intended, and as he had good attitude at work, the company’s decision was abnormally unfair in the standard of social norm.

 

Therefore, the Commission decided the company’s action was out of their discretionary power of human resource management,” the Commission elaborated.