A court ruled that the firing of employee A from SK Hynix, who inflated travel times and left the workplace without permission 16 times over five months, was justified. A claimed that the termination was invalid and demanded about 950 million won in unpaid wages and bonuses he would have received if he had continued working. However, the court dismissed A's claims, stating that repeated attendance violations undermine the trust in flexible work arrangements and significantly impact workplace order.

It was reported in Korean news that former SK Hynix employee A lost his lawsuit against the company regarding the validity of his termination.

Anyone who has worked in a company in the U.S. would find this ruling amusing.

He had 16 recognized attendance violations over five months, yet he took the case to the Supreme Court to argue whether the termination was justified?

Employee A from SK Hynix had been seen at his business trip location for only 2 to 12 minutes before leaving.

He inflated his travel time by 30 minutes to 2 hours in his records.

During business trips, he also left the workplace for 2 to as long as 5 hours. This happened about three times a month.

Time fraud, the most feared term for American workers

The moment this term appears in an American HR file, the game is over.

Entering different hours than actually worked in time records is not just a matter of "poor attendance"; it becomes an issue of stealing company money. If paid hourly, it's wage theft, and even if salaried, repeatedly manipulating records raises trust issues.

Of course, in the U.S., not just anyone can be fired. Discrimination or retaliatory termination related to race, gender, or disability is a completely different matter, and union contracts or individual employment agreements can change things as well.

However, in a typical at-will environment, if an employee repeatedly falsifies attendance records and the company has evidence?

It's not easy to find a lawyer who will support that employee.

A's explanations are interesting. There is no original GPS data.

Just having card key records does not prove unauthorized departure. He held meetings in places where the card key was not scanned. He prepared for meetings in his car.

When separated, everything can be explained. The problem is that this happened repeatedly.

U.S. HR does not debate individual excuses. They look for patterns.

One instance might be a mistake, but if the same issue arises over several months, it shifts from a Performance Issue to a Conduct Issue.

A's direct supervisor testified that he heard from colleagues multiple times that "A is hardly ever on-site."

By that point, the HR file was already thick with documentation.

Moreover, this is not A's first offense. He received a three-month pay cut for negligence in 2019 and a reprimand in 2020.

This incident occurred after the company had already issued two warnings.

Length of service is not a credit

A argued that after 16 years of service and receiving commendations, the termination was excessive.

It is true that long service can be a mitigating factor. However, just because someone has worked for a long time does not mean they earn the right to violate regulations.

No company will accept the logic of "I've worked for 16 years, so it's okay for me to disappear for 5 hours during a business trip."

The key point emphasized by SK Hynix was the flexible work arrangement.

Flexible work arrangements only function under the premise that employees manage their time honestly, rather than the company monitoring them with cameras.

This is precisely where companies in the U.S. are sensitive regarding remote and hybrid work. It doesn't matter where you work, but did you actually work during the hours you reported?

So my thought is that the labor commission dismissed the case, the administrative lawsuit won in the first instance, overturned in the second, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the company.

Then again, a civil lawsuit for unpaid wages and bonuses of 950 million won was filed. Another loss. And another appeal.

This is not a case where the company was looking for reasons to fire someone, but rather an incident where the employee presented reasons for termination over five months.

And honestly, the stamina for litigation is more surprising than the attendance issues.

If only 10% of that energy had been spent on work performance, he would have likely received a substantial bonus by now and nothing would have happened.