I. Summary
A foreign pastor (hereinafter refer to as “the employee”) started to work for an international school (hereinafter refer to as “the employer”) under contract as a pastor, but was dismissed 6 days after his employment began. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission on April 27, 2009 for remedy, alleging that his dismissal on March 6, 2009 was unfair.
The job description in the employment contract was “Position: Pastor of Church, English Worship. Duties shall include, but are not limited to: preaching, teaching and the provision of overall pastoral leadership.” However, when the employee first arrived at the school, the employer assigned 12 hours of Bible/English classes per week to the employee, contrary to the employment contract. The employee refused to teach these classes because, according to his contract, his major duties were to preach and fulfill other pastoral obligations, not teach regular classes. The employer then demanded that the employee sign a written pledge stating that the employee would comply with the Rules of Employment as a teacher, but the employee refused because he was hired primarily as a pastor, not a teacher, so a written pledge for teachers was not appropriate to his position as a pastor.
The employer dismissed the employee because he refused to teach the Bible/English classes, and also refused to sign the written pledge. The central argument in this dismissal case was whether the assigned Bible/English classes were mandatory according to the employment contract or not. The Labor Commission’s decision would be based on whether the employee’s rejection of the Bible classes was appropriate or not.

II. The school’s claim

1. As stipulated in the employment contract, the employee’s job was not limited to any particular duty. The employee’s view that, as a pastor, he could not perform other duties except his pastoral duties, is contrary to his employment contract. The “teaching” that the employee rejected was clearly within the employee’s job boundaries in the employment contract. Even though the details were not specifically included, the employee should agree to the employer’s work instructions because of the phrase, “but not limited to...” in the employment contract. In particular, those filling the pastoral position at the Christian School should not only preach to the students, but also provide English Bible classes so that he can share biblical knowledge, fundamental work for a pastor.

2. Signing of the written pledge was requested to ensure a reliable relationship between the employing school and the employee. This is a general document required by most companies at the beginning of employment. Despite this, the employee refused to sign the pledge, alleging that the school demanded, in a threatening manner, that the document be signed. Article 10 of the company’s Rules of Employment (regarding cancellation of employment) stipulates that the employer can cancel employment for those who do not submit the written pledge. The employee refused the employer’s justifiable demand to submit the necessary document, so the employer took the necessary next step, cancellation of employment, and stated that there was no threatening.

III. The employee’s claim

1. When the employee enrolled his daughter at an international school, he came to know the employer. At the employer’s suggestion, the employee started working part-time for the employer in February 2008, teaching a Bible class on Friday afternoons and preaching English sermons. Later, the employer suggested that the employee work as a full-time pastor at the English church of the school after he finished his contract as a full-time lecturer at a Christian university in Cheonan at the end of February 2009. The employer and the employee negotiated over the employment contract for several months, and although the university had offered to renew his contract with a salary increase, the employee signed a three-year employment contract with the international school, for a monthly salary of 2.7 million won.

2. As already discussed, the employee, who has a Doctor of Ministry degree, entered into an employment contract as a full-time pastor, at the suggestion of the employer. If the employee had known that he would not be a full-time pastor, but a full-time instructor engaged in regular Bible/English classes, he would never have entered into this employment contract with the employer. After hiring the employee, the employer changed the position from being a pastor to a full-time regular instructor, contrary to the contents of the employment contract. When the employee rejected this change, the employer dismissed him immediately, within one week after being hired, without any attempt to understand or persuade him to change his mind.

IV. Related Judicial Rulings

1. In cases where there is disagreement between the parties in interpreting the contract, logic and experience need to be used when considering the related sections, the motives behind the contract with the disputed article, the purpose desired by the contract, both parties’ real intentions, etc. If the real intentions of either party cannot be interpreted from their expressed intentions, the expected results from externally expressed behaviors (the contents of a written contract) shall be used to indicate real intentions. So, internal opinions of either party are not accurate indicators of real intent. (Supreme Court Ruling Jun 24, 1007, 97da5428)

2. In cases where, according to an employer’s Rules of Employment, newly-hired employees have a probationary period, whether or not this applies to a specific employee shall be stipulated in the employment contract. If there is no provision in the employment contract that a new employee will have a probationary period, he/she shall be regarded as a regular employee, rather than a probationary employee. (Supreme Court Nov 12, 1999, 99da30473)

V. Conclusion (Judgment of the Labor Relations Commission)

The major issue in this dispute was to decide whether termination of the employment contract was justifiable, after interpreting the purpose of the employment contract concerned. We came to the conclusion that follows, after considering the claims of both parties, the stated contents of evidence documents submitted, investigations made by the labor commission, facts revealed by answers to our questions, etc.

1. Concerning the purpose of the employment contract
The employment contract signed by the employer and the employee concerned stipulates, “Position: Pastor of Church, English Worship. Duties shall include, but are not limited to: preaching, teaching and the provision of overall pastoral leadership.” The duties stipulated by the employment contract seem limited to those of a pastor of the English church located in the international school, a position which involves preaching and teaching the Gospel. The employer stated that the employee’s position and duties were not only limited to being a pastor, but also included instructor’s duties since the contract included “teaching” as one of the duties, and used the phrase “not limited to”. However, if this employee was hired to teach, which requires assignment of the employee to the class and grading students, the company should have used the same type of employment contract as it used for its current instructors, not a different contract stipulating different working conditions and service requirements. Furthermore, the school principal sent an e-mail to the employee on February 20, 2009, stating that the employee would be assigned 12 hours of Bible classes per week if the teacher who was supposed to teach the relevant class did not show up at school, an event which might cause serious proble