CONTENTS
- 1. Labor Standards Act Litigation, the Detailed Background
- 2. Labor Standards Act Litigation, the Relevant Statutes and Precedents
- - ▶ Relevant Statutes
- - ▶ Relevant Precedent
- 3. Labor Standards Act Litigation, the Lower Courts' Determination
- 4. Labor Standards Act Litigation, the Supreme Court's Determination
- 5. Labor Standards Act Litigation, Daeryun's Strategy
1. Labor Standards Act Litigation, the Detailed Background
The plaintiffs in this litigation under the Labor Standards Act were seven individuals, including A, who had worked as non-full-time adjunct lecturers at a national university.
They filed the lawsuit for two reasons.
The first reason was that, within the university, the wages of non-full-time lecturers had been set excessively lower than those of full-time lecturers.
They contended that the differential payment of lecture fees constituted unfair discriminatory treatment of workers.
The second reason was an objection concerning ‘allowances.’ They argued that, having been classified as very short-time workers, they had not received weekly paid holiday allowances or annual paid leave allowances from the university.
Under the Labor Standards Act, holidays and annual leave do not apply to workers whose contractual working hours are less than 15 hours, and the plaintiffs countered that the very method of calculating ‘working hours’ was itself flawed.
2. Labor Standards Act Litigation, the Relevant Statutes and Precedents
Before analyzing this litigation under the Labor Standards Act, this section reviews the relevant statutes and precedents.
▶ Relevant Statutes
Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act (Equal Treatment)
An employer shall not discriminate against a worker on the basis of sex, and shall not engage in discriminatory treatment with respect to working conditions on the basis of nationality, religion, or social status.
Article 18 of the Labor Standards Act (Working Conditions of Part-Time Workers)
(1) The working conditions of a part-time worker shall be determined according to the ratio calculated on the basis of the working hours of an ordinary worker engaged in the same kind of work at the relevant workplace.
(2) The matters that serve as the standard in determining working conditions under paragraph (1) and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.
(3) Articles 55 and 60 shall not apply to a worker whose contractual working hours per week, averaged over a four-week period, are less than 15 hours.
Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act (Holidays)
(1) An employer shall guarantee each worker at least one paid holiday per week on average.
(2) An employer shall guarantee workers the holidays prescribed by Presidential Decree as paid holidays. However, where there is a written agreement with the workers' representative, such holidays may be replaced with specific working days.
Article 60 of the Labor Standards Act (Annual Paid Leave)
(1) An employer shall grant 15 days of paid leave to a worker who has attended work for at least 80 percent during one year.
(2) An employer shall grant one day of paid leave for each month of perfect attendance to a worker who has worked continuously for less than one year, or to a worker who has attended work for less than 80 percent during one year.
▶ Relevant Precedent
“The principle of equal treatment provided in Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act and the principle of equal pay for work of equal value provided in Article 8 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act are both intended to give substantive effect, within labor relations, to the principle of equality under Article 11(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, the defendant, which establishes and operates the universities at issue, being national universities, must not engage in wage discrimination based on social status or sex when entering into an employment contract, and must also not subject a worker to unreasonable discriminatory treatment for reasons unrelated to the nature of the work under the employment contract.” (See Supreme Court Decision of March 14, 2019, 2015 Du 46321).
3. Labor Standards Act Litigation, the Lower Courts' Determination
The courts of first and second instance that heard this litigation under the Labor Standards Act granted only part of the plaintiffs' claims.
First, regarding the wage differential between full-time and non-full-time lecturers, the court found this to be an unlawful act in violation of the constitutional principle of equality and Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act.
The court emphasized the principle that those who perform the same work must be paid the same wages.
However, the court did not accept the plaintiffs' arguments concerning holiday and annual leave allowances.
It was found that the plaintiffs' weekly teaching hours were all 12 hours or fewer, so the plaintiffs qualified as workers whose average contractual working hours per week were less than 15 hours and were therefore not subject to Article 60 of the Labor Standards Act and related provisions.
4. Labor Standards Act Litigation, the Supreme Court's Determination
The Supreme Court reversed the determinations of the first and second instances.
It viewed the standard for the ‘working hours’ of non-full-time adjunct lecturers differently from the first and second instances.
The Supreme Court held that, absent special circumstances, whether a university adjunct lecturer qualifies as a very short-time worker should be determined not by the number of teaching hours, but by the number of working hours ordinarily required to perform the lectures and the work incidental thereto, as well as the other duties set out in the appointment contract and elsewhere.
This is because conducting a lecture ordinarily requires preparing a syllabus and the lecture content, and because adjunct lecturers, too, must in most cases carry out student management, evaluation duties such as setting and grading examinations and entering grades, and other academic administrative tasks.
In light of the nature and content of such duties, the Supreme Court stated that the plaintiffs appeared to require a considerable amount of time to perform them.
Accordingly, the court explained that if the teaching hours themselves were regarded as directly equivalent to the contractual working hours in determining whether a person is a very short-time worker, the purpose of the Labor Standards Act, which exceptionally excludes only ‘certain workers whose working hours are very short and whose contribution to the workplace is low’ from the application of provisions on weekly paid holidays and annual paid leave, would be nullified.
The court added that, because the courts of first and second instance had misapprehended the legal principles regarding very short-time workers and contractual working hours and had failed to conduct the necessary examination, it reversed the lower judgment and remanded the case to the court below.
5. Labor Standards Act Litigation, Daeryun's Strategy
Through this decision, the Supreme Court reestablished the standard for the contractual working hours of ‘very short-time workers.’
Disputes over contractual working hours arise frequently not only at universities but also at other workplaces, such as private academies, where wages are based on teaching hours, so this Supreme Court decision is expected to have a considerable impact.
For this reason, both workers and employers may wish to take note of this precedent before entering into employment contracts or addressing related disputes.
As a partner to both companies and workers, Daeryun Law Firm LLP provides legal services based on long-accumulated know-how, practical experience, and expertise.
In addition to attorneys with extensive experience in related litigation, the firm also has a range of professionals, including certified public accountants and certified labor attorneys.
If you have any questions regarding the Labor Standards Act or need advice, you are welcome to request a consultation with Daeryun Law Firm LLP at any time.
