Professor Refusing Performance-Based Pay Agreement Denied Reappointment... Supreme Court Rules "Abuse of Discretion"

"Reasons for Refusing Shift from Step-Based to Annual Salary System, Unfair Retirement Notice"

The Supreme Court has ruled that the school's decision to refuse the reappointment of a university professor who did not agree to the performance-based pay system, which was rejected due to failure to obtain the consent of the majority of faculty members, was illegal.

According to the legal community on the 15th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice No Jeong-hee) upheld the lower court ruling in favor of Professor A, who filed a lawsuit seeking to cancel the decision of the Faculty Appeal Review Committee.

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

Professor A was appointed as a professor at B University in 1998 and continued to work even after the school changed its name to C University in 2011.

C University, which had maintained a seniority-based pay system, revised its faculty salary regulations in February 2014 and implemented a performance-based pay system starting in March of the same year. Prior to this, in December 2013, C University held a vote on the revised faculty salary regulations changing from seniority-based to performance-based pay, but the proposal was rejected as it failed to gain majority consent from the faculty members.

Subsequently, in December 2018, the board of directors of C University notified Professor A that he had been selected as a conditional reappointment candidate but that the revised faculty salary regulations would be applied. In February 2019, Professor A expressed to the school that the seniority-based pay system should be applied, but the school notified him that the reappointment contract could only be signed if he agreed to the performance-based pay system, and in August of the same year, informed him that the reappointment contract was not established and that he would be treated as retired.

Professor A filed an appeal against this decision, but after it was dismissed, he filed an administrative lawsuit. The first trial court ruled, "Professor A has a legitimate expectation right to have his appointment contract renewed under the same terms as before upon being notified of reappointment by C University," and ordered the cancellation of the notification of non-establishment of the reappointment contract. The court stated, "Refusing to renew the appointment contract solely because Professor A rejected the application of the revised faculty salary regulations cannot be considered a reasonable ground," and viewed it as "an unjust refusal to renew the appointment contract with no legal effect."

The appellate court reached the same conclusion. The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of Professor A.

The court stated, "While the reappointment act by the school corporation is basically a discretionary act, if there is illegality in the refusal of reappointment due to abuse or excess of discretion, it is subject to judicial review."

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