Court: "'InGukGong' Regular Employment Conversion... Not a Violation of Equality Rights"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] A court ruling has determined that the conversion of non-regular workers to regular positions at Incheon International Airport Corporation, which sparked fairness controversies last year, cannot be considered discrimination.

According to the legal community on the 4th, the Administrative Court of Seoul, Administrative Division 4 (Chief Judge Han Won-kyo) ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Kwon, the representative of the Judicial Exam Preparation Group, who sought to cancel the dismissal of a complaint against the National Human Rights Commission. The court stated, "Merely treating people differently based on their date of employment does not constitute 'discriminatory acts infringing on the right to equality' as defined by law," and added, "Acts that temporarily favor certain individuals or groups to eliminate existing discrimination cannot be regarded as discriminatory acts infringing on the right to equality."

In June of last year, Incheon Airport Corporation announced that it would directly employ about 1,900 security screening workers as security guards. The Judicial Exam Preparation Group filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, arguing that this decision infringed on the right to equality among regular employees and non-regular employees, between converted non-regular employees and job seekers, and among non-regular employees who are not automatically converted based on their year of employment.

However, the Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint, stating, "No specific victims of discrimination between existing regular employees and those subject to conversion to regular positions have been identified, and the nature of the harm cannot be specified, so it does not fall under the scope of investigation." The court also ruled, "It is unclear who suffered harm from direct employment and what the specific harm is, and it is not clear what equality rights infringement occurred due to differential treatment between comparison groups," concluding, "There is no significant misunderstanding or unreasonable circumstance in the Human Rights Commission's judgment."

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