Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 3: Entity Eligible for Remedy and Need for Remedy, etc.
4. Expiration of Contract and Need for Remedy
4.1 Existence of Need for Remedy During the Procedure of Discrimination Correction, Even When Employment Relation Ends
| Seoul Administrative Court on June 23, 2015, Case 2014guhap21042 | |||||
| * Plaintiff: A
* Defendant: Chairman of the Central Labor Commission * Intervening Defendant: Shinhan Bank Corporation 1. Facts: a. The plaintiff joined the intervenor company around August 1978 and took voluntary retirement on December 30,2009, as the deputy branch manager. He was then hired by the intervenor as a contract manager for fixed-term employment on an annual renewal basis starting March 11,2010. b. The intervenor changed the check-in and check-out procedures for fixed-term contract managers from only registering at the start and end of work at the initial branch to registering at three branches where work was performed, starting December 1,2011. The check-out task, which was part of the deputy branch manager's duties, was separated and assigned to the newly created contract positions when voluntary retirements were implemented around December 2009. Since then, deputy branch managers have not performed these check-out duties. c. The plaintiff claimed he was discriminated against in terms of check-in registration methods, self-development expenses, wage increases, and special bonuses compared to other employees and filed a discrimination correction request with the Seoul Regional Labor Commission on May 20,2014. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Commission dismissed the check-in registration method claim on July 18,2014, because it did not fall within the prohibited area of discriminatory treatment and rejected the other applications due to the lack of comparable employees. d. Disagreeing with the initial judgment, the plaintiff filed for a review with the Central Labor Commission on August 14,2014, but the review was dismissed on October 21,2014, because there were no comparable employees performing similar or identical tasks within the intervenor's premises, although check-in registration methods do fall within the area prohibited from discriminatory treatment. 2. Court Judgment: a. Considering the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the need for remedy for the correction of discriminatory treatment does not disappear even if the employment relationship with the employer ends due to the expiration of the contract period. ① Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the 'Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees' explicitly states that the Labor Commission's correction order for discriminatory treatment can include stopping discriminatory acts, improving wages, and other working conditions, as well as "appropriate compensation." Therefore, if a fixed-term employee files a request for correction of discriminatory treatment and the employment relationship ends due to contract expiration, although there may be no need for remedy to stop the discriminatory act or improve working conditions, there still exists a need for remedy to seek appropriate monetary compensation for the damage suffered from the discriminatory treatment. ② Such appropriate monetary compensation due to discriminatory treatment has independent significance from remedies sought through civil litigation, meaning that the existence of a remedy need does not disappear merely because one can file a civil lawsuit to seek compensation. Specifically, while a fixed-term employee claiming damages from an employer due to unlawful acts needs to prove the employer's intent and negligence separately, a monetary compensation order from the Labor Commission due to discriminatory treatment requires no such additional proof of intent or negligence, which has different requirements than those in relief through civil proceedings. ③ With the revision of the Act on March 18,2014 (Law No. 12469), Article 13, Paragraph 2 was added, introducing punitive compensation orders that can command up to three times the damages incurred to fixed-term employees for intentional or repeated discriminatory acts by the employer (although not applicable to this Case according to Supplementary Provision Article 3). This reaffirms the independent significance of the Labor Commission's monetary compensation orders and expands the scope of monetary compensation that fixed-term employees can receive for intentional or repeated discriminatory acts by the employer. Regarding this Case, it is undisputed between the parties that the plaintiff's employment contract expired on March 31, 2015, during the ongoing litigation, resulting in the termination of the employment relationship with the intervenor. However, in light of the legal principles previously discussed, it can be said that the plaintiff still has a legal interest in seeking the annulment of the review judgment that dismissed the application for discrimination correction. b. Article 2, Clause 3 of the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees defines 'discriminatory treatment' as treating someone unfavorably without reasonable grounds in matters related to wages, bonuses, performance payments, and other working conditions and welfare. Here, 'working conditions' refer to the conditions agreed upon in the employment relationship between the employer and the employee concerning wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, and other employee treatments. Specifically, this includes not only wages, working hours, welfare, and dismissal as defined in the Labor Standards Act but also items specified in Article 93, Clauses 1 to 12, and Enforcement Decree Article 8, Clause 1, Items 1 and 3 of the same law. The fact that the method for registering check-ins and check-outs was changed is undisputed between the parties. Given the definition and scope of 'working conditions' seen earlier, such methods for registering check-ins and check-outs serve as a means for the employer to monitor or manage employee attendance information and thus can affect employee evaluations, attendance, discipline, and rewards. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that these check-in and check-out registration methods belong to the category of working conditions that fall within the prohibited area of discriminatory treatment. c. It is reasonable to assume that there are essential differences in the main job contents between the management-specific contract work performed by the plaintiff and the deputy branch manager selected as the comparable employee. Therefore, it cannot be said that they engage in identical or similar work. Hence, since no comparable employees exist, the plaintiff's claim regarding discriminatory treatment needs no further examination and is unfounded. |
|||||
| Download : 서울행법 2014구합21042.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents