Ordinary Wage Litigation | The Supreme Court's Standard for Recognizing On-Call Duty and On-Call Standby Hours as Working Hours

This is a case in which, in the course of ordinary wage litigation, the issue was whether the on-call duty and on-call standby hours of medical laboratory technologists, radiologic technologists, drivers, mechanical and electrical engineers, and operating room nurses constitute working hours under the Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiffs, who belonged to an entity under the defendant, asserted that the on-call duty and on-call standby hours should also be included as working hours and the ordinary wage recalculated accordingly, and they sought from the defendant payment of the difference in various allowances, such as overtime pay already received.

In this ordinary wage litigation, the Supreme Court, relying on precedent, held that the matter must be determined specifically in each individual case by comprehensively considering various circumstances, such as the content of the labor contract, the rules applicable to the workplace concerned, and the nature and content of the work the employee provides.

That is, it must be assessed whether the content and quality of the work performed during on-call duty amounts to an extension of the original work or is of the same nature as ordinary work.

The Supreme Court stated that it must examine whether the on-call duty is completely free from the constraints of the ordinary working hours, whether the nature of ordinary work continues unchanged, the frequency and duration of being engaged in the original work during on-call duty, and whether sufficient sleeping time is guaranteed during on-call duty.

In setting out the above legal principles, the Supreme Court found that there was no evidence by which it could ascertain what the content of the work the plaintiffs performed during on-call duty was, whether it differed from the nature of ordinary work, and how much time was freely available during on-call duty.

There is a fact that, with respect to other radiologic technologists at some hospitals under the defendant, a judgment recognizing that their weekday nighttime and holiday work during part of the claim period in this case constitutes working hours under the Labor Standards Act was rendered and became final.

The Supreme Court pointed out that there was no material by which it could ascertain whether the work content and nature of the radiologic technologists among the plaintiffs in this case who worked at the relevant hospital during the relevant period were also identical to those of the others, and whether there had been any change in the work content and nature after the time of the above final judgment.

That is, it could not be ascertained what the content of the work performed during ordinary working hours was, how great the difference in work intensity was between ordinary work and on-call duty or on-call standby work, and within how many minutes a person had to report to work upon receiving a call while on on-call duty or on-call standby at home.

The Supreme Court stated that it was difficult to determine whether all of the above plaintiffs' on-call duty or on-call standby hours at home constitute working hours that are substantively under the direction and supervision of the defendant as the employer, and to what extent such time should be regarded as working hours, and it reversed and remanded the lower judgment.

Ordinary wage litigation is litigation filed when a dispute arises with an employer over the scope of the ordinary wage, which serves as the basis for the additional wages an employee receives for overtime work, nighttime work, and the like.

Whether rest and standby time falls within working hours must be determined by considering the content of the labor contract, the provisions of the rules of employment and collective agreement applicable to the workplace concerned, whether the employer interferes with or supervises the employee during the break, and whether a break area that may be used freely is provided.

In addition, it must be determined specifically in each individual case by comprehensively considering various circumstances, including whether there are grounds to find that the employee's actual rest was hindered or that the employer's direction and supervision existed, and the degree thereof.

In ordinary wage litigation, the most important thing is to interpret the legal principles accurately through relevant precedent and to establish a strategy that can lead to a favorable judgment.

At the Labor and Industrial Accident Group of Daeryun Law Firm LLP, 🔗attorneys with experience at the Administrative Appeals Commission and the Ministry of Employment and Labor provide tailored legal services for clients.