Supreme Court Holds Public Hearing Today on Hyundai Kia Motors 'Special Recruitment for Families of Workers Who Died from Industrial Accidents' Case

Supreme Court public hearing scene. [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] Is a collective agreement between labor and management that requires employers to specially hire the bereaved families of workers who died from industrial accidents valid or invalid?

There is a sharp divide between the view that it is invalid because it significantly restricts the employer's freedom of contract and undermines equal opportunity amid severe youth unemployment, and the view that it is valid as it is a choice made by the employer and a form of consideration for socially vulnerable groups.

The Supreme Court will hold a public hearing on the 17th to hear expert opinions on this issue, which involves the legal doctrine of the "limits of the content of collective agreements" and important labor-management relationship issues.

The Supreme Court en banc will conduct a public hearing in the grand courtroom from 2 p.m. on the same day, attended by Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo and all justices, regarding the appeal trial of a damages lawsuit filed by the bereaved family of Mr. Lee, who died from an industrial accident while working at Kia Motors and Hyundai Motors, against the two companies.

At the public hearing, labor law experts Professor Kwon Oh-sung of Sungshin Women's University and Professor Lee Dal-hyu of Kyungpook National University Law School will appear as witnesses for the bereaved family and the companies, respectively, to present their opinions.

The approximately two-hour public hearing will be divided into two main parts: whether the collective agreement is invalid from a legal perspective for violating public order and morals, and the practical impact on society and the parties involved.

After the lawyers for both sides present their arguments, the experts appearing as witnesses will give their statements, followed by the Chief Justice introducing summaries of opinions from related organizations and groups, and then a Q&A session.

In February, Chief Justice Kim requested 14 organizations, including the Korean Bar Association, Ministry of Employment and Labor, Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, major labor unions, and the Korea Employers Federation, to submit written opinions on the issues of this case.

The Korean Bar Association reportedly conveyed the opinion that "the collective agreement stipulating special hiring for bereaved families of industrial accident victims should not be uniformly deemed invalid, and each case should be judged considering various circumstances."

The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions stated, "Since the employer voluntarily decided to take responsibility within an acceptable scope for employees who lost their lives due to industrial accidents, it does not restrict the freedom of hiring, and even if validity is recognized, the impact on the industry is minimal."

On the other hand, the Korea Employers Federation expressed the view that "it should be considered invalid because it excessively restricts the employer's freedom of hiring and undermines the values of fairness and equal opportunity in hiring that our society seeks to uphold."

Mr. Lee, who joined Kia Motors in 1985 and worked in mold cleaning for 23 years, was transferred to Hyundai Motor's Namyang Research Institute in February 2008. Six months later, he was diagnosed with leukemia and died in 2010 after battling the disease. The Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service recognized the industrial accident, stating that "Mr. Lee was exposed to benzene, a carcinogen contained in the cleaning agent, for a long time, which caused leukemia," and paid approximately 180 million KRW in compensation.

Subsequently, Mr. Lee's bereaved family filed a lawsuit demanding the hiring of Mr. Lee's child based on the collective agreement provision that "one direct family member of a union member who died from an industrial accident shall be specially hired within six months of the request, provided there are no disqualifications," and also sought approximately 236 million KRW in damages for breach of the duty of safety consideration.

The lower courts in the first and second trials ruled that the collective agreement provision requiring special hiring for bereaved families of industrial accident victims was invalid.

The courts reasoned, "A collective agreement provision that forces the employer to enter into an employment contract at an unspecified future time with an unspecified person significantly restricts the employer's freedom of contract, effectively results in job inheritance, and may lead to the emergence of a fixed labor class, which contradicts our society's sense of justice," and "it violates good morals and social order as stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act, thus is invalid."

They added, "The livelihood of the bereaved should be secured through monetary compensation, which aligns with the principle of damages for non-performance of obligations."

At the public hearing, discussions will also cover the practical aspects, such as how many companies currently recognize such "special hiring for bereaved families of industrial accident victims," and the ripple effects on the industry if the Supreme Court rules the agreement valid, in addition to the legal validity of the collective agreement clause.

The public hearing will be broadcast live from 2 p.m. via the Supreme Court website, Naver TV, Facebook Live, and YouTube. After the hearing, the full video and a "public hearing highlights" video will be released on the Supreme Court's Facebook and YouTube channels.

All litigation representatives, court officials, and reporters entering the grand courtroom on the day must wear masks at all times, and only the representatives or witnesses may remove masks while speaking during the hearing.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.