Kumho Tire Dispatch Workers Lose Lawsuit Over Employee Stock Wage Claims
Gwangju District Court:
“Incentive Bonus, Not Wage Loss”
Black smoke is rising into the sky due to a fire that occurred on the morning of May 17 at the Kumho Tire factory in Gwangsan District, Gwangju. Photo by Song Bohyun
View original imageFormer dispatch workers at Kumho Tire filed a lawsuit against the company, claiming wage losses because they were not allocated shares from the employee stock ownership association before being directly hired. However, the court did not accept their claim.
On September 7, the 11th Civil Division of the Gwangju District Court, presided over by Chief Judge Hong Kichan, announced that it had dismissed the damages claim filed by 241 Kumho Tire employees against the company.
After working as dispatch employees at Kumho Tire’s partner companies for more than two years, Mr. A and others became eligible for direct employment in 2022 following a lawsuit to confirm their employment status that began in 2015. They filed the lawsuit, arguing that they were unable to receive employee stock allocations during the period when the company did not fulfill its direct employment obligations, resulting in lost wages.
Hot Picks Today
"Rather Than Endure a 1.5 Million KRW Stipend, I'd Rather Earn 500 Million in the U.S." Top Talent from SNU and KAIST Are Leaving [Scientists Are Disappearing] ①
- "No Cure Available, Spread Accelerates... Already 105 Dead, American Infected"
- "If That's the Case, Why Not Just Buy Stocks?" ETFs in Name Only, Now 'Semiconductor-Heavy' and a Playground for Short-Term Traders
- "Reporters Who First Revealed Jo Jinwoong's Juvenile Offense History Cleared of Juvenile Act Violation"
- "How Did an Employee Who Loved Samsung End Up Like This?"... Past Video of Samsung Electronics Union Chairman Resurfaces
The court ruled, “The employee stock allocation demanded by the plaintiffs was a form of incentive bonus paid due to the special and incidental circumstance of the defendant company being acquired by a foreign firm. Even if the plaintiffs did not receive this allocation, it cannot be considered a loss equivalent to wages.” The court added, “At the time of the employee stock agreement, the defendant was merely the acquisition target suffering from financial difficulties, and it is difficult to conclude that the company had the authority to determine the size or scope of the payment.”
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.