Supreme Court: "Even After Working Over 2 Years, Different Employment Contracts Do Not Qualify for Regular Employee Conversion"

[Asia Economy Reporter Bae Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that even if the fixed-term employment period exceeds two years, if the labor contracts are different, the employee is not subject to conversion to a regular position.

On the 15th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Park Sang-ok) overturned the previous ruling that had favored plaintiff A, a fixed-term employee at Chosun University, in the appeal case against the Central Labor Relations Commission's dismissal of his unfair dismissal relief reconsideration judgment, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court.

In June 2013, Chosun University signed a one-month employment contract with A as a successor after a staff member working at the university's Reserve Forces unit resigned. Separately from the contract with A, the university conducted a public recruitment process for a one-year fixed-term contract staff position at the Reserve Forces unit, and A applied and was finally selected. After working under a one-month contract followed by a one-year fixed-term contract, A's contract was extended for another year, resulting in a total employment period of 2 years and 1 month.

As A's two-year contract period was nearing its end, the university conducted another public recruitment process.

A applied for the position but was eliminated in the interview stage. He filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Labor Commission, but it was dismissed. The Fixed-term Employment Act stipulates that if a fixed-term worker is employed for more than two years, the worker should be regarded as having a labor contract of indefinite duration, i.e., a regular employee.

The first trial court ruled that since A had worked as a fixed-term employee for a total of 2 years and 1 month, conversion to a regular position under the Fixed-term Employment Act had occurred, and canceled the Central Labor Relations Commission's dismissal of the unfair dismissal relief application. The second trial court upheld the same judgment and dismissed the appeals from both the Central Labor Relations Commission and the university, which participated as an auxiliary party.

However, the Supreme Court's ruling differed. The court judged that the initial one-month contract A signed with the university was due to the mid-term resignation of the predecessor and was different from the two one-year contracts. The period A worked under the same fixed-term contract did not exceed two years, so he could not be considered a regular employee under the Fixed-term Employment Act.

The court stated, "It does not appear that the university had the intention to continuously employ A or to repeatedly renew the previous contracts."

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