Doing the Same Job as Regular Employees... Central Labor Relations Commission Rules "Unfair Wage Discrimination Against Fixed-Term Workers"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

The Central Labor Relations Commission (CLRC) has ruled that it is unfair to pay fixed-term workers less allowance despite performing similar tasks as regular employees. The employer argued that differential treatment should be allowed based on the type of employment, but this was not accepted.

According to the Ministry of Employment and Labor on the 14th, the CLRC made this ruling regarding a case in which four fixed-term workers recently claimed they were subjected to discriminatory treatment by an elevator manufacturing, installation, and maintenance company.

These fixed-term workers argued that although they performed the same or similar tasks as regular employees, they did not receive summer vacation pay, kimchi-making subsidies, regional allowances, family allowances, longevity allowances, qualification allowances, communication allowances, or bonuses, which they claimed was unfair discriminatory treatment.

In response, the employer contended that the total wage difference between fixed-term and regular employees was not significant, and that considering the type of employment, hiring routes, and scope of work, there were reasonable grounds for differential treatment.

The CLRC sided with the fixed-term workers.

The CLRC judged that the failure to pay various wages to fixed-term workers performing the same or similar tasks as regular employees constitutes "disadvantageous treatment without reasonable grounds" under Article 2, Clause 3 of the Act on the Protection of Fixed-term and Part-time Workers (Fixed-term Workers Act).

Previously, the Regional Labor Relations Commission (RLRC) had ruled in favor of the employer, stating that there were reasonable grounds for the unfavorable treatment of fixed-term workers, but the CLRC overturned this decision.

The CLRC explained, "There is no difference in application qualifications or preferential conditions between fixed-term workers and regular employees," and added, "Moreover, fixed-term workers were equally assigned to the same work teams as regular employees after joining and performed the same tasks."

Regarding the employer's claim that "regular employees perform a wider range of tasks," the CLRC pointed out that no evidence was submitted to prove this.

As for the employer's argument that "fixed-term workers, unlike regular employees, do not undergo personnel evaluations and thus are not held accountable for particularly low performance or capabilities," the CLRC judged, "Although it seems fully possible to conduct evaluations and hold them accountable, the employer chose not to do so at their discretion."