Section 2: Individual Labor Relations
Chapter 8: Expiration of Employment Contract
5. Exceptions to Restriction on Employment Period in Fixed-Term Employment Contract
5.2 Determination of Whether the Exceptional Circumstances of the Limitation Period Apply in Cases Not Considered as Teaching Assistants under the Higher Education Act
| Gwangju High Court, Decision on August 27, 2015, Case 2015nu5558 | |||||
| * Plaintiff, Appellee: Park ○○○
* Defendant, Appellant: Republic of Korea 1. Facts a. The plaintiff was initially hired on March 1, 2007, for a one-year term at K University, a national university operated by the defendant, as a professional contract employee [temporary professional contract (Grade A)] and renewed the contract annually until February 28, 2010, while handling public relations and planning tasks for K University. b. Around February 4, 2010, K University convened a special committee which resolved that the reappointment of professional contract staff whose employment periods exceeded two years should principally be prohibited and that staffing should be replenished through open competition for new appointments. However, reappointments could occur under exceptional circumstances listed in each clause of Article 4(1) proviso of the Act on the Protection of Fixed term and Part time Employees. Consequently, from March 1, 2010, the plaintiff was appointed as a teaching assistant, not under the previous professional contract status, and was reappointed annually until February 28, 2014, during which time the plaintiff took on the role and responsibilities of a teaching assistant in public relations and planning. c. However, around March 1, 2014, the president of K University under the defendant notified the plaintiff of his automatic retirement upon the expiration of his employment term as a teaching assistant. 2. Court Judgment a. The plaintiff, who had been employed as a professional contract worker handling public relations and planning tasks for the university from 2007 and was appointed as a teaching assistant in 2010 in form, but performing the same tasks and having his contract renewed annually, is not considered a teaching assistant as defined under Article 4(1) proviso clause 6 and the corresponding enforcement decree of the Act on the Protection of Fixed term and Part time Employees, and should be regarded as an employee who has entered into an employment contract of indefinite duration according to Article 4(2) of the same act, and therefore, should not be automatically retired upon the expiration of the employment contract period. b. Since the plaintiff continued to work as a fixed term employee for more than two years after the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Fixed term and Part time Employees from the renewed contract date of March 1, 2008, until the date of dismissal, under the provisions of Article 4(2) of the same Act, he should be considered as having entered into an employment contract of indefinite duration. Therefore, for the defendant to lawfully dismiss the plaintiff, there must be a valid reason for dismissal, i.e., a fault attributable to the employee that makes it socially unacceptable to continue the employment relationship. The dismissal of the plaintiff by the defendant simply based on the expiration of the employment contract period is invalid as it violates the mandatory provision of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act. |
|||||
| Download : 광주고법 2015누5558.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents