Heated Debate at Supreme Court on 'Hiring Children of Industrial Accident Victims'... "Protecting the Vulnerable" vs "Parental Chance"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] A fierce debate unfolded at the Supreme Court over the collective agreement of Hyundai and Kia Motors, which mandates the special hiring of children of employees who died due to work-related accidents.

On the 17th, the Supreme Court held a public hearing in the grand courtroom for the appeal case of a damages lawsuit filed by the bereaved family of industrial accident victim Mr. A against Kia Motors and Hyundai Motor Company. The hearing was attended by Chief Justice Kim Myeong-su and 12 Supreme Court justices.

During the public hearing, Hyundai and Kia Motors criticized the special hiring agreement for children of industrial accident victims as "employment inheritance" that infringes on the equal rights of other job seekers.

The representatives of Hyundai and Kia Motors argued, "Guaranteeing employment to industrial accident victims' families through employment inheritance provisions is like using parental advantage to pass down quality jobs," claiming it discriminates against other young job seekers and undermines fairness.

In response to the counterargument that special hiring is compensation for industrial accident victims' families, they countered, "If industrial accident victims' families are hired based on merit, special allowances can be provided as preferential treatment," asserting that compensation does not necessarily have to be enforced through hiring.

In response, the bereaved family emphasized, "In a situation where wealth is concentrated on one side and poverty is expanding, the value of fairness must consider the need to protect socially vulnerable groups," stressing that the value of fairness should be considered from the perspective of protecting industrial accident victims' families.

In Kia Motors' case, they argued that the children of industrial accident victims specially hired account for less than 0.5% of the total hiring scale, so it does not infringe on the freedom of young job seekers to choose their occupations.

Professor Kwon Oh-sung of Sungshin Women's University, a reference witness for the bereaved family, pointed out, "The company voluntarily promised to hire children of industrial accident victims; no one was forced to sign under duress," adding, "Invalidating the agreement would rather infringe on the company's freedom to hire."

In response, Hyundai and Kia Motors stated, "Although the special hiring provision for children of industrial accident victims involves mutual consent between the parties, ultimately its effect is granted by law," and added, "The agreement must be examined as a premise for disputing the legal effect of the hiring act."

The bereaved family of Mr. A demanded the company hire Mr. A's child after Mr. A died due to a work-related accident. They cited the collective agreement provision that mandates the special hiring of one immediate family member within six months if a union member dies from a work-related accident.

When the company refused, the bereaved family filed a lawsuit demanding damages for Mr. A's death and enforcement of the hiring obligation.

The first and second trials ruled that such collective agreement provisions violate the employer's freedom of employment contracts and result in job inheritance, which goes against the concept of social justice, and declared them invalid.

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