Section 2: Individual Labor Relations
Chapter 11: Discrimination Correction for Non-Regular Employees
5. Reasonable Reasons
5.1 Judgment of the Existence of Reasonable Reasons Based on the Principle of Prohibition of Arbitrary Discrimination and the Principle of Proportionality
| Supreme Court Decision on March 29, 2012, Case 2011du2132 | |||||
| * Plaintiff, Appellant: A Bank Corporation
* Defendant, Appellee: Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission * Defendant's Supporting Participant: XXX et al., 80 persons 1. Facts a. The plaintiff bank, following the implementation of the wage peak system, assigned the roles of sales marketing and internal control inspections to certain employees. Sales marketing was designated as the primary duty and internal control as ancillary, but no actual management or supervision was conducted over the sales marketing activities, resulting in negligible sales performance. In contrast, the internal control tasks were standardized, with daily documentation required for the work performed. b. The plaintiff bank appeared not to consider the performance in sales marketing tasks in the evaluations of the employees handling both sales marketing and internal control inspections. The workers involved in this Case did not perform internal control duties at the branches where they were in charge of sales marketing and internal control inspections. c. As the contracts of the workers in this Case neared expiration, the plaintiff bank appointed many employees subject to the wage peak system as dedicated self-inspectors, making them successors to these workers, to handle internal control inspections at each branch. 2. Court Judgment a. Article 2, Clause 3 of the Act on the Protection of Fixed term Employees defines 'discriminatory treatment' as treating someone unfavorably without a reasonable cause in terms of wages and other working conditions. Unfavorable treatment refers to the overall disadvantages that fixed term employees face when treated differently from comparable regular employees in terms of wages and other working conditions. An absence of a reasonable cause occurs either when there is no recognized necessity to treat fixed term employees differently, or even if such a necessity is acknowledged, the methods and extents applied are not appropriate. Whether there is a reasonable cause must be determined based on the specifics of the unfavorable treatment in question and the circumstances cited by the employer as reasons for the unfavorable treatment in each case, comprehensively taking into account decision factors such as the fixed term employee's type of employment, the content and scope of work, authority and responsibilities, wages, and other working conditions. b. When considering the case of the plaintiff bank's discriminatory payment of commuting and lunch allowances to the employers in question, which was less favorable compared to the regular employees, the payment, as intended for reimbursement for actual expense, was not of a nature that should vary based on the scope, difficulty, or amount of the work performed. Given that the purpose of encouraging long-term service among regular employees could seemingly be achieved through various systems already in place by the plaintiff bank, it is concluded that there is no reasonable justification for the discriminatory treatment related to the payment of commuting and lunch allowances. |
|||||
| Download : 대법 2011두2132.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents