Bus Driver's Annual Leave Refusal "Not a Violation of the Labor Standards Act"

[Supreme Court Ruling]

The Supreme Court has ruled that a CEO of a city bus company refusing an employee's annual leave request does not constitute a violation of the Labor Standards Act. The court explained that, given the public nature of bus operations, refusal to grant leave in situations where it is difficult to secure substitute personnel is considered a legitimate reason.

On July 17, the Supreme Court's Criminal Division 3 (Presiding Justice Oh Seokjun) upheld the lower court's acquittal of Mr. A, the CEO of a city bus transportation company in Busan (represented by attorney Park Boyoung of Law Firm Sunghun), who had been charged with violating the Labor Standards Act (Case No. 2021Do11886).

A public bus depot in downtown Seoul. No direct relation to the driver. Yonhap News Agency

[Facts]

On July 5, 2019, Mr. A, the CEO of a city bus company in Busan, rejected driver Mr. B's request to take annual leave on July 8, citing a collective agreement provision requiring leave requests to be submitted at least three days in advance. Nevertheless, Mr. B did not report to work on the requested day. Mr. A was indicted for violating Article 60, Paragraph 5 of the Labor Standards Act, on the grounds that he had unfairly restricted the employee's right to annual leave.

[Key Issue]

Article 60, Paragraph 5 of the Labor Standards Act stipulates the "employee's right to designate the timing" of annual leave, requiring employers to grant leave at the time requested by the employee in principle. However, it also recognizes the employer's "right to change the timing" if granting leave at the requested time would cause significant disruption to business operations.

The central issue in this case was whether the failure to grant paid annual leave to the employee constituted a violation of the above provision-in other words, whether the exercise of the employee's right to designate the timing and the employer's right to change the timing were both lawful.

[Lower Court Decisions]

The court of first instance ruled, "It is not necessarily unlawful for a collective agreement or work rules to set a deadline for exercising the right to designate annual leave," adding, "Mr. A appears to have relied on the validity of the collective agreement and determined that the leave request violated the agreement, thus not granting annual leave. Based on the evidence submitted, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's actions infringed on the right to designate leave or that there was awareness of illegality." The court therefore delivered a verdict of not guilty.

The appellate court also stated, "City buses are a fundamental means of public transportation and the Busan city bus service operates under a quasi-public system. Bus schedules are prepared in advance, and drivers' working hours are set accordingly. If a scheduled driver is absent or on leave, a substitute must be found or the schedule adjusted." The court continued, "This can affect other drivers' working hours and disrupt citizens' daily lives. The collective agreement in this case requires leave to be requested at least three days in advance, and it is difficult to conclude that this provision unfairly infringes on the employee's right to annual leave." The appellate court upheld the not guilty verdict of the first instance court.

[Supreme Court Decision]

The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. Notably, in this ruling, the court specifically outlined the factors that must be considered when an employer exercises the right to change the timing of leave.

The bench stated, "Whether granting leave at the time requested by the employee would cause significant disruption to business operations should be determined by comprehensively considering various factors, such as: the nature and characteristics of the employee's duties; the expected number of staff and workload during the leave period; the timing of the leave request; and the necessity and time required to secure a substitute worker. In particular, in businesses where punctuality is critical, such as route passenger automobile transportation, the need to secure substitute workers is high. Therefore, the main consideration should be whether it is objectively difficult to secure a substitute by the time designated for leave by the employee."

The court further explained, "In businesses where operational punctuality is crucial, such as route passenger automobile transportation, if a collective agreement stipulates a deadline for leave requests, that deadline should be respected as the result of labor-management agreement on a reasonable period required to secure substitute workers."

The court added, "If, in a route passenger automobile transportation business, an employee requests leave in violation of the collectively agreed deadline without unavoidable reasons, this objectively creates difficulty in securing a substitute and causes significant disruption to business operations. Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the employer may lawfully exercise the right to change the timing of leave under Article 60, Paragraph 5 of the Labor Standards Act."

[Defense Counsel's Opinion]

Park Boyoung (age 46, Judicial Research and Training Institute Class 40), lead attorney at Law Firm Sunghun who represented Mr. A from the first trial, stated, "This ruling is significant in confirming that setting a period for exercising the right to designate leave through a collective agreement, in order to minimize operational disruptions and facilitate workforce reallocation, does not violate the Labor Standards Act and is not invalid." He added, "The ruling recognizes the employer's right to change the timing of leave to prevent significant harm to the company, while still respecting the employee's right to designate leave."

He further explained, "The city bus transportation industry has the particularity that it is difficult to secure substitute personnel, and any shortage can immediately inconvenience citizens. While the mere existence of a collective agreement does not automatically justify exercising the right to change leave timing, in this case, the special characteristics of the industry were taken into account, and the exercise of the right to change timing was deemed valid."

An Jaemyung, Law Times Reporter

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.

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