Supreme Court: "Bus Drivers' Waiting Time... Vehicle Cleaning and Inspection Are Not Working Hours"

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Honam Moon munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that even if a bus driver cleaned and inspected the vehicle while waiting between trips after completing a run, this entire waiting period cannot be considered working hours if the driver was not under the company's direction and supervision during that time.

On the 30th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Dongwon) announced that it overturned the lower court's ruling in favor of six bus drivers, including driver A, who filed a wage claim lawsuit against transportation company B, and remanded the case to the Seoul Southern District Court.

Previously, in 2016, drivers including A filed wage claims ranging from 1.65 million to 6.68 million KRW against company B, arguing that waiting time during bus operations should be considered working hours. They claimed that during waiting time, they performed tasks such as returning dispatch sheets and cleaning and inspecting vehicles.

Company B, on the other hand, argued, "Waiting time is a fixed rest period according to the dispatch schedule and can be freely used without the company's direction and supervision, so it should be excluded from working hours."

The first trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The court stated, "Drivers could not properly rest during waiting time due to delays in operation or road conditions, and if cleanliness was poor, they were disciplined, so they cleaned even if they had free time," ordering payment of the claimed wages to each plaintiff. The second trial court upheld this judgment.

However, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and reconsideration of the case. The court pointed out, "Waiting time includes periods that do not qualify as working hours," and added, "It cannot be concluded whether drivers A and others performed cleaning or other tasks beyond the working hours already reflected in the wage agreement between the parties, nor can it be determined how long such tasks were performed even if they did."

The court also stated, "There is no evidence that company B specifically directed and supervised the bus drivers throughout the waiting time. Although waiting time was irregular, the bus departure times were set in the dispatch schedule, so it likely was not difficult to use this time as rest," and added, "the lower court erred in its understanding of the legal principles regarding working hours, which affected its judgment."

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