A court has ruled that a freelance show host who enters into an agency contract with a home shopping company to host broadcasts cannot be considered an employee of that company. This is the first ruling to deny the employee status of a show host. On May 1, the Civil Division 41 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Jung Hoeil) ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by show host A against major conglomerate-affiliated home shopping company B (legal representatives: Law Firm Ije, Kim Kwanha and Moon Yoonjung) seeking confirmation of the invalidity of her dismissal (2023Gahap96954).
[Facts of the Case]
A began working as a show host at B under an employment contract in May 2005, resigned, and then entered into an agency contract with B from 2017, continuing until July 2023. The agency contracts between A and B were made for fixed terms and renewed under the same terms upon expiration.
In June 2023, B received inquiries from the media regarding allegations of show host abuse of power and verbal abuse, prompting an internal investigation. Due to A's verbal abuse toward a junior colleague, B suspended A from appearing on broadcasts, and in July 2023, terminated the agency contract at A's request. A argued, "I joined B and performed show host duties under significant direction and supervision in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of earning wages. Even after B unilaterally converted me to a freelancer, the way I performed my duties as a show host remained almost the same as before." A further claimed, "I performed work as an employee of B, and B failed to fulfill its written notice obligations under the Labor Standards Act. The dismissal was invalid due to procedural and substantive defects," and filed the lawsuit.
[Court’s Judgment]
The court found that B did not exercise specific direction or supervision over A’s performance as a show host, and therefore, A could not be regarded as an employee of B. While there have been previous court decisions recognizing freelance announcers as employees under the Labor Standards Act, in this case, the court noted that, unlike other broadcasts, B’s home shopping broadcasts did not provide show hosts with scripts, and there was no standardized method for performing duties. The court concluded that B did not directly direct or supervise the show hosts.
The court stated, "Although the main broadcasting duties of show hosts are subject to certain restrictions based on the basic direction and planning intentions determined in meetings led by B, unlike other broadcasts, B does not provide show hosts with scripts, and the show hosts perform their broadcasting duties autonomously, utilizing their personal capabilities." The court added, "There cannot be a standardized method of performing these duties, and it cannot be said that B exercises specific direction or supervision." The court continued, "Although B set the home shopping broadcast schedule and notified the show hosts, and the work schedule was determined by the hosts appearing on the scheduled broadcasts, the arrangement of broadcast schedules, selection of products for sale, and assignment of suitable show hosts to products are tasks that B, as the home shopping production company, is naturally expected to perform. In this process, show hosts could decide whether to accept assigned broadcast schedules, so it is difficult to conclude that the show hosts were forced to host broadcasts against their will. Furthermore, the fact that they did not have unlimited discretion does not mean that the show hosts were bound by B’s instructions regarding appearances."
The court also held that even if the contract prohibited show hosts from appearing as models for competitors or participating in competitors’ events, and required prior company approval for external activities, this did not make the show hosts employees providing labor in a subordinate relationship to B. The court explained, "These exclusive elements stem from the unique nature of show hosts’ images being directly linked to the B home shopping brand and being imprinted on consumers." The court added, "The agency contracts were made for fixed terms, and show hosts like A, upon the expiration of their contracts, were free to enter into agency contracts with other home shopping companies and thus could leave the contractual relationship. The processes for contract termination and renewal ensured that A had sufficient discretion regarding the formation, maintenance, and termination of the contractual relationship."
[Legal Representative's Opinion]
Moon Yoonjung (43, 4th Bar Exam), attorney at Law Firm Ije, stated, "This is the first case in which the employee status of a show host has not been recognized," and added, "In this case, it was acknowledged that the individual abilities of the show host are important in home shopping broadcasting, and thus the home shopping company was found not to exercise direction or supervision."
Han Suhyeon, Law Times Reporter
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
