Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 2: Employer
1. Determination of the Existence of Employer Status under the Labor Standards Act
1.3 Existence of Employer Status, of Certain Organizational Unit or Execution Agency of the Employer, Or of a Person In Charge of Its Affairs
| Supreme Court Decision on February 24, 2006, Case 2005du5673 | |||||
| * Plaintiff, Appellant: Korean Association for [Omitted] and another
* Defendant, Appellee: Chairman of the Central Labor Commission 1. Facts: a. The plaintiff corporation was designated as a Disability Vocational Rehabilitation Fund project operator on October 22, 2000, and January 1, 2001, respectively, receiving full operational and personnel costs from the state and managing the "Seoul City Nowon Center for the Visually Impaired" and the "Seoul City Nowon Vocational Activity Facility for the Visually Impaired" under a mandate from the Minister of Health and Welfare. b. The plaintiffs employed participants for these projects, establishing labor contracts with specified terms, and renewed these contracts upon expiration (The contracts were signed using the names of the plaintiff corporation's president and the director of the welfare center, with the president affixing his signature). c. However, the plaintiff corporation decided to relinquish the project on November 23,2002, after determining it was inefficient and not directly serving the visually impaired, exacerbated by labor union strikes and noncooperation. d. On November 26, 2002, the director of the welfare center notified the Minister of Health and Welfare and other relevant authorities (including the head of the Seoul branch of the Korea Employment Agency for the Disabled and the Mayor of Nowon District) of the intention to return the project by December 31 of the same year. Notification was also given to the facility's employees on November 30 that their contracts would expire on December 31. Initially rejected, the application to return the project was finally accepted on February 5, 2003, with the cancellation of the plaintiff's designation as a project operator. e. Contracts from 2000 mentioned that severance was included in wages, but later contracts stated that severance would be reserved through the government budget. The Minister of Health and Welfare had urged the plaintiff and other operators to renew contracts with existing professionals unless special circumstances arose. f. On November 30, 2002, the plaintiffs notified the participants and two others that their employment contracts would expire on December 31 of the same year. g. In response, on January 6, 2003, the participants filed a complaint with the Seoul Regional Labor Commission, claiming that the notice of contract expiration constituted unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices. The commission recognized the claims of unfair dismissal for some but rejected others and all claims of unfair labor practices on March 17, 2003. h. Disputing parts of these findings, all parties sought a review by the Central Labor Commission, which on September 29, 2003, ruled the notification of contract expiration effectively constituted unfair dismissal for one of the appellants, but upheld the rejections of the other appeals regarding unfair dismissal and all claims of unfair labor practices. 2. Court Judgment: a. The relationship of employment between the parties in a fixed term labor contract naturally terminates at the end of the term without the need for any action such as dismissal from the employer, unless special circumstances exist. However, if fixed term employment contracts are renewed repeatedly over a long period, rendering the specified term merely formal, and considering the content of the contracts, the circumstances and motivations for entering into the contracts, the intended purpose of specifying the term, the true intent of the parties, practices related to similar employment contracts, and labor protection laws, refusal to renew such contracts without just cause can be deemed an invalid dismissal. b. In cases where a remedial order is issued by the Regional Labor Relations Commission or a Special Labor Relations Commission regarding unfair dismissal or unfair labor practices, the party responsible for correcting the situation in accordance with the order must be the employer. Therefore, if such a remedial order is issued to a department, executive body, or individual responsible for business execution within the employer's organization, it should be regarded as an order directed towards the employer itself. Accordingly, only the employer, who has legal standing as a party, should be considered eligible to file for a retrial with the Central Labor Relations Commission or a lawsuit to annul the retrial ruling. In this case, the Welfare Center (Plaintiff) is merely a social welfare facility operated by the Plaintiff corporation and cannot be considered a separate association or foundation with legal standing apart from the Plaintiff corporation. Therefore, the remedial order for unfair dismissal issued to the Plaintiff Welfare Center in this retrial ruling should be considered as essentially directed towards the Plaintiff corporation, which is the employer. Thus, only the Plaintiff corporation, which has legal standing as a party, is eligible to file a lawsuit for annulment of this retrial ruling. Accordingly, the portion of the case where the Plaintiff Welfare Center seeks annulment of this retrial ruling is unlawful, as it has been filed by a party without legal standing and without eligibility to act as the plaintiff. c. A Case where a lawsuit filed in the name of a non-legal entity social welfare facility was dismissed, and the representative of the facility was made responsible for the costs of litigation under an analogous application of Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law. |
|||||
| Download : 대법 2005두 5673.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents