Supreme Court: Wage Claims Possible Only If Period of Inability to Work Due to Employer's Fault Is Proven

Supreme Court Remands Wage Claim Lawsuit by 'Highway Toll Collectors'
"Korea Expressway Corporation Control Room Assistants Without Similar Workers, Working Conditions Must Be Reexamined"

The Supreme Court upheld its previous ruling that tollgate fee collectors on highways are included in the category of ‘Jomuwon’ (assistant workers) among the on-site job groups managed by the Korea Expressway Corporation, and that there is an obligation for direct employment by the Expressway Corporation.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that in order to claim wages, etc., for the period during which the employer did not directly employ the workers despite the obligation to do so, the worker must prove that the non-provision of labor was due to reasons attributable to the employer.

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul.

The Supreme Court’s First Division (Presiding Justice Kim Seon-su) on the 12th overturned the lower court’s ruling that partially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs?highway toll collectors recognized as illegally dispatched?who filed a damages lawsuit against the Expressway Corporation claiming compensation for wage discrimination due to not being directly employed, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

About 590 toll collectors, employed by outsourced service companies, filed a lawsuit against the Expressway Corporation, claiming damages equivalent to the wage difference, arguing that the corporation violated the Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers and failed to fulfill its obligation for direct employment.

The first and second trials ruled that "toll collection work is a regular and continuous task and should be subject to the employment rules applied to workers converted to indefinite-term contracts," and ordered payment of the wage difference based on the standards applied to regular Jomuwon workers.

The first trial ordered the Expressway Corporation to compensate approximately 31.3 billion KRW, excluding some allowances, out of the 38 billion KRW claimed as the wage difference with regular workers over five years from 2012. The second trial dismissed some of the plaintiffs’ claims and ordered payment of about 21.5 billion KRW.

However, the Supreme Court did not accept the second trial’s judgment that allowed wage claims for the period during which the toll collectors could not actually work due to reasons attributable to the Expressway Corporation after the obligation for direct employment arose.

The court stated, "To claim wages, etc., the fact of labor provision must be proven," and "It is possible to claim wages by proving that the non-provision of labor was the employer’s responsibility, and the employer’s responsibility should be judged by considering the specific reasons and circumstances for the non-provision of labor, as well as the attitudes of the dispatched workers and the employer regarding those reasons."

Additionally, the Supreme Court’s Second Division (Presiding Justice Lee Dong-won) on the same day overturned the lower court’s ruling that partially ruled in favor of 36 situation room assistants of the Expressway Corporation in their appeal regarding confirmation of worker status and remanded the case to the Daegu High Court.

The situation room assistants had signed service contracts with the Expressway Corporation and performed situation room assistance and on-duty tasks at each branch office. They responded to civil complaints received via phone calls to the situation room and relayed reports of traffic accidents, broken-down vehicles, and traffic disruptions caused by fallen objects to safety patrol workers on duty.

Additionally, during their situation room assistance duties, they conducted patrols and inspections of facilities four times a day to prevent theft, fire, unauthorized intrusion, and other disturbances in the office building, its annexes, and the surrounding plaza.

Both the first and second trials judged that the situation room assistants performed patrol duties according to the patrol times, frequency, methods, and target facilities designated by the Expressway Corporation, and recorded their work details in traffic situation and work logs, thus qualifying as workers under the direction and supervision of the Expressway Corporation. The first trial ordered payment of about 4.6 billion KRW to the plaintiffs, and the second trial ordered compensation of 4.7 billion KRW.

However, the Supreme Court’s judgment differed. The Supreme Court found it erroneous that the second trial calculated wages, etc., by applying the on-site worker management regulations to the situation room assistants without specifically examining the differences in labor intensity between the situation room assistants and Jomuwon workers, despite the absence of workers performing the same or similar tasks as the situation room assistants among the Expressway Corporation’s Jomuwon workers.

The court stated, "Even if there are no workers performing the same or similar tasks, the court may apply the working conditions reasonably determined by the employer and the dispatched workers, but such judgment must be made cautiously," and "The lower court assumed that if an appropriate working condition cannot be found after considering various factors, the existing working conditions must be applied, but it applied the on-site worker management regulations to the situation room assistants despite differences in job content, labor value, work type, and wage structure compared to on-site Jomuwon workers."

It further explained, "It should have been determined whether the working conditions of Jomuwon workers could be applied to the situation room assistants," and "If the existing working conditions cannot be applied, it is necessary to examine and judge whether there are working conditions agreed upon by the Expressway Corporation and the situation room assistants upon direct employment or other appropriate working conditions, and whether those conditions can be reasonably regarded as the working conditions agreed upon by both parties," thus providing the reason for remand and reversal.

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