After Returning from Parental Leave, Lotte Mart Made Employee Work in Sales... Supreme Court Rules "Job Must Not Be Disadvantageous"

1st and 2nd Trials: "Temporary Position Held Before Leave... Not Returned to Different Work"
Supreme Court: "Significant Differences in Job Nature, Scope, and Responsibility... Cannot Be Considered the Same Work"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that while it is permissible to assign a different job rather than the same one upon returning from parental leave, assigning work with a different nature and content is illegal.

When returning from parental leave, even if the formal rank remains the same, a transfer that lowers actual authority and responsibility, as well as the actual wage level, constitutes discrimination.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) announced on the 4th that it overturned the lower court ruling which canceled the Central Labor Relations Commission's retrial decision that Lotte Shopping's personnel transfer of a reinstated selected manager to a sales position was an unfair transfer, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court.

Mr. A, who worked at Lotte Mart, was appointed as a selected manager in 2013. A selected manager is a temporary position assigned to deputy-level employees as needed according to Lotte Mart's operating regulations.

In June 2015, Mr. A applied for one year of parental leave and requested reinstatement in January of the following year, but the store manager refused, citing "there is a substitute worker." Mr. A reapplied for reinstatement, stating that he no longer lived with the child in question, and Lotte Shopping assigned him as a sales representative instead of a selected manager.

Mr. A filed a relief request with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair transfer and unfair labor practices. The commission recognized only the unfair transfer. Both Lotte Shopping and Mr. A appealed this decision to the Central Labor Relations Commission, which also ruled it was an unfair transfer violating Article 19, Paragraph 4 of the Act on Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Reconciliation.

The first and second trials ruled in favor of Lotte Shopping. They argued that the selected manager position before the leave was only a temporary post, and there were many cases where selected managers were reassigned as regular staff, so it could not be seen as a return to different work.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed. While it is possible to assign a "job that pays the same level of wages" rather than the same work before the leave, in such cases, the job must not be less favorable than before, and various circumstances must be comprehensively considered.

The court stated, "The duties of a selected manager and a sales representative differ significantly in nature, content, scope, authority, and responsibility, so it is difficult to consider them the same work."

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