CONTENTS
- 1. Work Allowance, a Case Concerning Whether Union Activity Constitutes Work
- 2. Work Allowance Litigation, the Court's Determination
- 3. Work Allowance Litigation, Daeryun's Strategy
1. Work Allowance, a Case Concerning Whether Union Activity Constitutes Work
This is a case in which the issue was whether union activity is included in working time for the purpose of a work allowance.
The Plaintiffs are persons who are not public officials under the State Public Officials Act, and they entered into employment contracts with the heads of the respective Regional Construction and Management Administrations under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, which is under the Defendant.
The Plaintiffs work as operation-restriction enforcement officers (hereinafter "public-service workers") who perform duties such as cracking down on overloaded vehicles at the respective land management offices under the Regional Construction and Management Administrations.
The Plaintiffs had been elected as officers of the labor union in this case and were serving in those positions.
The union in this case and the heads of the respective Regional Construction and Management Administrations agreed to implement a flexible working hours system under Article 51, Paragraph 2 of the Labor Standards Act.
The work arrangement was a rotating shift of "day, night, and off," with working hours set from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. for day shifts and from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. the following day for night shifts, and the public-service workers were paid a night work allowance under the Labor Standards Act when they worked at night.
The union and the heads of the respective Regional Construction and Management Administrations entered into a collective bargaining agreement in 2022, and the Plaintiffs, as officers of the union in this case, obtained the employer's prior approval for time-off from working hours pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement in this case and had such time processed as authorized leave when they engaged in union activity during working hours.
Work Allowance Litigation, the Plaintiffs' Arguments
The Plaintiffs argued that the time during which they, as persons granted time-off from working hours, performed the maintenance and management duties of the union with the Defendant's prior approval and within the limit of the working-hours time-off under the collective bargaining agreement in this case should be regarded in the same way as time spent providing work.
The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendant had paid only the wages corresponding to day-shift work to the Plaintiffs, who performed the union duties in this case at night, and contended that the Defendant was obligated to pay the unpaid night work allowance and delay damages.
Work Allowance Litigation, the Defendant's Arguments
The Defendant argued that the night work allowance is an allowance paid to those who actually engage in work on site, and that the Plaintiffs, who received time-off from working hours for the union activity in this case, cannot be regarded as persons who "actually engaged in work."
The Defendant's position was that, because there was no separate agreement between the union in this case and the Defendant as to whether a night work allowance should be paid to persons granted working-hours time-off who performed union duties at night, the Defendant had no obligation to pay a night work allowance to the Plaintiffs, who performed union duties at night after being granted time-off from working hours.
2. Work Allowance Litigation, the Court's Determination
On the work allowance litigation, the court determined that the night work allowance must be paid.
The court stated that, where union duties are performed pursuant to time-off from working hours, this is deemed to be the provision of work in relation to the employer, and that the Labor Standards Act does not exclude time spent performing union duties under working-hours time-off from the scope of the night work allowance.
On the basis of the foregoing legal principles, the court determined that the Defendant was obligated to pay the night work allowance in the same manner as for workers who actually engaged in work, and it dismissed the Defendant's appeal.
3. Work Allowance Litigation, Daeryun's Strategy
In work allowance litigation, it is necessary to closely analyze whether the claim can be recognized as a matter of law.
The situation described above was a case in which the interpretation of the Labor Standards Act, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement was at issue.
Based on the relevant statutes, the most important step is to clearly examine the legal standards governing whether a particular work allowance is payable, to prepare relevant evidence, and to establish a litigation strategy.
The labor 🔗attorneys of Daeryun Law Firm collect evidence that can prove the precise working hours in work allowance litigation through coordination with the Examination of Evidence and Digital Forensics Group, and they establish a sound litigation strategy.
