Supreme Court: Temporary Reassignment of Wrongfully Dismissed Workers Can Be Justified

Court: "Reinstatement with Work Assignment Only Possible as Temporary Measure"
Hyundai Motor Partner Company Employee's 'Unauthorized Absence' Dismissal Upheld... "No Wage Claim for Absence Period"

The Supreme Court has issued its first ruling stating that when reinstating an unfairly dismissed worker, if a temporary standby assignment is made without adhering to the principle of returning to the original position, such a measure can be deemed legitimate if its necessity and reasonableness are recognized. This does not mean that assigning a standby position to an unfairly dismissed worker upon reinstatement is generally lawful; rather, legitimacy can only be acknowledged if it is a temporary measure intended to assign appropriate duties corresponding to reinstatement to the original position.

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul.

The Supreme Court's Second Panel (Presiding Justice Lee Dong-won) overturned the lower court's ruling that partially ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal filed by dismissed worker Choi Byung-seung against Hyundai Motor Company regarding confirmation of worker status and remanded the case to the appellate court on the 4th.

Choi joined Yesung Enterprise, an in-house subcontractor at Hyundai Motor's Ulsan plant, in 2002 and fought for regular employment but was dismissed in February 2005, after which he staged a hunger strike atop a steel tower for about 290 days.

Subsequently, Choi filed an administrative lawsuit against Hyundai Motor, claiming unfair dismissal, and in 2012, the Supreme Court recognized Hyundai Motor's unfair dismissal. After the Supreme Court ruling recognizing unfair dismissal, Choi was reinstated in January 2013 but was assigned to standby duty and subsequently was absent for 927 days until December 2016, during which Hyundai Motor imposed a second disciplinary action.

During the unfair dismissal lawsuit process, Choi also filed a civil lawsuit demanding confirmation that Hyundai Motor's dismissal was invalid and payment of wages not received since 2005, which included wages for the period he was assigned to standby and absent.

The first trial court ruled in favor of Choi. Based on Hyundai Motor's labor-management collective agreement stipulating "payment of 200% of wages in cases of unfair disciplinary action," the court ordered Hyundai Motor to pay Choi approximately 280 million KRW in back wages since 2005 plus an additional 200% penalty amounting to about 840 million KRW in total. However, the claim for wages after the standby assignment was dismissed.

The appellate court also found that Choi was unfairly dismissed, like the first trial. However, it ruled that Hyundai Motor was not obligated to pay the penalty and reduced the back wages to about 460 million KRW. The appellate court dismissed the wage claim for the period from April 2014 to December 2016, during which Choi was absent after the standby assignment, based on the principle of res judicata under the Civil Procedure Act, which stipulates that a person who withdraws a lawsuit after a final judgment on the merits cannot file the same lawsuit again.

The appellate court stated, "Since the dismissal is invalid, the employment relationship between the plaintiff and defendant remained valid during the dismissal period, and the plaintiff's inability to provide the same labor during that period is attributable to the defendant's fault." However, it added, "The penalty clause in the labor-management agreement applies only when the unfairness of individual disciplinary dismissals is proven. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the defendant exercised disciplinary authority with the intent to dismiss the plaintiff or that the dismissal was an unfair disciplinary action."

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's ruling regarding the penalty issue but ruled that Hyundai Motor is not obligated to pay wages for the period Choi was absent after the standby assignment.

The court reasoned that the worker's refusal to report to work after being temporarily assigned to standby duty upon reinstatement from unfair dismissal cannot be considered a justifiable reason, and thus the employer is not obligated to pay wages for the period of absence.

The court stated, "The company's personnel order assigning standby duty without proposing a position is recognized as necessary and reasonable, and the plaintiff does not suffer significant or substantial disadvantages in daily life due to this. Therefore, the legitimacy of the standby assignment can be acknowledged, and it is difficult to see justifiable reasons for the plaintiff's refusal to report to work."

Additionally, the Supreme Court's Second Panel (Presiding Justice Lee Dong-won) ruled against plaintiff Oh Ji-hwan in a case with similar issues on the same day. Oh joined company A, an in-house cooperative at Hyundai Motor's Asan plant, in 2000, was transferred to Yesung Enterprise in November 2002, and was disciplinarily dismissed the following year.

Oh filed an administrative lawsuit to confirm worker status and a civil lawsuit to invalidate the dismissal against Hyundai Motor, and the Supreme Court ruled that Hyundai Motor, not Yesung Enterprise, was his employer and that the dismissal was invalid. Hyundai Motor reinstated Oh and assigned him to standby duty, but Oh refused and was absent for 375 days, leading to disciplinary dismissal for unauthorized absence. After his request for relief was dismissed by the Central Labor Relations Commission, he filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the reconsideration decision.

The first and second trial courts rejected Oh's claims, stating, "The personnel order for standby duty was a reasonable procedure necessary to determine the plaintiff's specific duties during reinstatement, and the prolonged standby period was due to the plaintiff's non-cooperation and other special circumstances, making the personnel order legitimate."

The Supreme Court also upheld the lower courts' rulings, stating, "The standby assignment for the plaintiff was legitimate, and there are grounds for disciplinary action due to refusal to report to work. The lower courts did not err in their legal interpretation regarding the legitimacy of the personnel order, and there is no error affecting the judgment."

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