I. Introduction

Some workers are excluded from the application of labor law. Representative examples include domestic workers. The Labor Standards Act (LSA) stipulates that “The Labor Standards Act shall apply to all businesses or workplaces in which five or more workers are ordinarily employed. This Act, however, shall not apply to any business or workplace which employs only relatives living together, or to workers hired for domestic work” (Article 11 of the LSA).

While it is evident that domestic workers exclusively working for a particular house are completely excluded from application of the LSA, this gets confusing when someone works for a company but is paid to be a housekeeper, butler, driver, etc. at the company president’s house. In particular, there are disputes related to workers getting injured at work, or whether the workers should receive severance pay or not.

II. Domestic Workers Employed by a Company

“Domestic worker” refers to a person paid to engage in work that runs a particular home as a housekeeper, a cleaner, a nanny, a butler, etc. As “domestic work” exclusively involves housekeeping related to an individual’s private life, it is not preferable for the nation to intervene in and audit working hours or wages, which is why domestic workers are excluded from the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, even though a domestic worker for a company president is employed by the company, the LSA is not applicable. However, in cases where a worker is employed by a company and is covered by company regulations, but was assigned to work as a gardener, guard, butler, driver, etc. at the company president’s house, the situation is different. I would like to review some cases that deal with this issue.

III. Domestic Worker not Covered by the Labor Standards Act

This labor case involved an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, but was dropped as the domestic worker was not covered by the Labor Standards Act. The ruling stated: “Even though this worker claimed he applied for a position posted by the company, his workplace was the summer house owned privately by the company president, and was employed by the president and her husband. Caretaking of the summer house was not related to the company’s main business of construction. In addition, the worker has not done anything to contribute to the profit gaining activities of the company. In light of these facts, this worker, privately employed by the employer, is considered a domestic worker to which Article 11 of the LSA applies. It is therefore not necessary to review the facts of the dismissal or its justification.”

IV. Domestic Worker Covered by the Labor Standards Act

In looking into the background to the worker beginning to work at the CEO’s house, it was found that he had been employed by the company to work in the Management Department, and then was immediately assigned to work at the CEO’s house. Since that time, the company had managed the worker’s general matters regulated by labor law such as wages, service regulations, and payment of severance pay. The company had also handled the worker’s social security insurance and other income deductions. Even though the type of work was at the discretion of the CEO, the worker still belonged to the company organization. This worker is clearly different from a worker hired independently by an individual as a private housekeeper, driver, or gardener. Accordingly, the decision by the Employee Welfare Corporation to reject the family’s application for the survivors’ pension because of the worker’s supposed status as a domestic worker was inaccurate.

V. Judgment

A review of these two cases reveals two things: 1) In cases where a worker is employed by a company and is exclusively engaged in housekeeping duties, the worker shall be regarded entirely as a housekeeper excluded from coverage by the Labor Standards Act; 2) However, in cases where a worker was employed by the company and assigned to the company president’s house as a guard, exclusive driver, gardener, etc., that worker is likely considered to be covered by the LSA. In light of this, it is necessary to consider the worker’s job characteristics, job scope, and work relations with the company in deciding whether the LSA applies or not.