Ordinary Wage Dispute Case | An Ordinary Wage Dispute over Whether Paid Holidays Are Included, Winning the Case

The client who came to the corporate attorney was Company A, an automobile parts manufacturer.

Several years ago, Company A introduced a two-shift daytime continuous system and reorganized the working hours and paid holiday rules related to the existing shift work system.

In this process, a practice of treating part of Saturday as paid was established by labor-management agreement, but it had been operated without any written rule.

Recently, however, some retired workers filed a claim for a difference amounting to several hundred million won, asserting that “Saturday is not a paid holiday, so the base hours for calculating the ordinary wage should be reduced, and accordingly more allowances should be paid,” and Company A faced a class action.

To respond, Company A requested the assistance of a corporate attorney.

▶ Supreme Court en banc (judgment of December 18, 2013, 2012Da89399)

It is judged according to the substantive nature of the wage, rather than relying on formal criteria such as the name of the wage or the payment cycle.

When calculating the ordinary wage on an hourly basis, the amount is computed according to the following criteria.

One of the key issues was whether the treatment of Saturdays as paid holidays was not a mere convenience but an operation based on a substantive agreement between labor and management.

In response, the corporate attorney analyzed accumulated labor-management consultation minutes, personnel notices, labor union publications, and the like, and systematically secured materials that could objectively prove the substance of the implicit and customary agreement regarding paid treatment.

In particular, through the consistency between the regularly repeated mode of operation and the related documents, the attorney emphasized that it was not a mere practice but an “agreed system.”

In this matter, the continuity and consistency of the practical custom became the main issue.

The corporate attorney highlighted that the system had already taken root, on the ground that the Saturday paid standard had been reflected in wage calculation and in supplementing the minimum wage.

Through this, the attorney emphasized that an interpretation based on the particular circumstances of each matter and on actual operating standards, rather than a simple comparison, was needed.

The core of the case lay in how to set the standard hours for ordinary wage, which vary depending on whether Saturday is a paid day.

The corporate attorney closely examined the company's actual operating standards and the workers' wage records, and proved with figures and documents that the existing standard of 220 hours had been applied without change for several years.

In this way, the attorney emphasized that the company's wage structure had been consistently designed and operated in accordance with the relevant statutes, such as the Minimum Wage Act, and secured legal legitimacy.

A dispute over ordinary wage is not a simple matter of calculation; it involves multilayered legal issues such as the interpretation of working hours, the practice of handling paid holidays, and the interpretation of the collective agreement.

In particular, when there is no express provision, proving the substantive agreement between labor and management becomes critical, so a strategic response is necessary from the early stage.

Our firm has attorneys with extensive litigation and practical experience in the field of corporate human resources and labor who assist the client.

Moreover, depending on the need, we cooperate organically with experts in each field to provide all-around assistance, from gathering materials to analyzing precedents.

If you are facing difficulties in a situation similar to the case above, please prepare a response strategy at any time through 🔗Legal Consultation Booking with Daeryun, Korea's ninth-largest law firm (based on National Tax Service VAT filings in 2025).