Supreme Court: "Hyundai and Kia Must Hire Children of Workers with Industrial Accident Injuries"

The Special Employment Agreement for Industrial Accident Bereaved Families is Valid... "Different from Hiring Children of Retirees and Long-term Employees"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The court has ruled that the collective agreement of Hyundai·Kia Motors, which stipulates the special hiring of children of employees who died due to work-related accidents, does not violate the law and should be recognized as effective.

On the 27th, the Supreme Court en banc (Presiding Justice Kim Sang-hwan) overturned the lower court's ruling that partially ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the damages claim lawsuit filed by the bereaved family of Mr. A, who died from a work-related accident, against Hyundai·Kia Motors, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

Mr. A was exposed to benzene, a chemical substance, while working at Hyundai·Kia Motors and died from acute myeloid leukemia. Subsequently, the bereaved family filed a lawsuit demanding the hiring of Mr. A's child based on the collective agreement clause stating, "One direct family member of a union member who died due to a work-related accident shall be specially hired unless there is a disqualification."

Both the first and second trials ruled that the collective agreement stipulating the hiring of children was invalid and that Hyundai·Kia Motors was not obligated to hire Mr. A's child. The first trial held that hiring children is not a matter related to working conditions and therefore is not subject to the collective agreement. The second trial had a slightly different view. The second trial court stated that hiring children could be subject to the collective agreement if it is not illegal. However, it ruled that hiring children violates "good morals and other social order."

The Supreme Court referred this case to the en banc and held a public hearing in June. The public hearing focused on whether the court can declare null and void an agreement autonomously reached by labor and management on the grounds that it violates good morals and other social order, and whether hiring children infringes on the employer's freedom to hire and the fairness of other applicants' hiring opportunities.

After deliberation, the Supreme Court ruled that the collective agreement on hiring children is not invalid. The Supreme Court stated that since a collective agreement is the result of exercising the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of collective bargaining and the autonomy of labor-management agreements, courts should be cautious when judging whether the content of a collective agreement violates Article 103 of the Civil Act.

In particular, the Supreme Court said, "A collective agreement to hire direct family members in cases where a union member dies due to a work-related accident or other certain reasons cannot be deemed to violate Article 103 of the Civil Act unless it excessively restricts the employer's freedom to hire or significantly impairs the fairness of hiring opportunities."

However, it drew a line by stating that this is different from preferential hiring of children of retirees or long-term employees. The Supreme Court said, "The special hiring clause for industrial accident bereaved families compensates for the special sacrifice of workers who lost their precious lives," and "It aims to protect or consider socially vulnerable groups to help resolve family livelihood difficulties, thereby contributing to achieving substantive fairness."

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