Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Human Rights Commission of Korea - Complaint Summaries

Discrimination against Irregular Workers in a Collective Agreement and Working Conditions [2007] KRNHRC 3 (1 January 2007)

"Park" and 311 other irregular workers employed by "O" Company filed a complaint
with the Commission claiming that "O" Company discriminated against irregular workers,
as "O" Company (1) did not apply clauses related to activities of the labor union including
the scope of union members, union activities during work hours, eligibility standards for
full-time officials of the labor union, and education hours for union members to them
because they were irregular workers; (2) applied a lower wage increase rate to them than
regular workers; (3) fired only irregular workers among employees who received a "D" in
their performance review; (4) excluded irregular workers from various bonuses and
benefits including family allowance, winter allowance, homecoming allowance, sick
leaves, disaster compensation, comprehensive medical examinations, temporary retirement,
wage for workers temporarily retired and severance pay, or provided less favorable
bonuses and benefits to irregular workers; (5) classified the duties of irregular workers into
six grades and set the ceiling of wages for each grade in order to not increase the wages of
irregular workers beyond the ceiling, even if irregular workers were employed for a long
time and received good evaluations.

"O" Company insisted that it decided to reach an additional collective agreement with
irregular workers who were union members, because the existing collective agreement was
only for regular workers who were union members. It also claimed that it had significantly
addressed the difficulties facing irregular workers including the restriction of union
activities during work hours, as it signed the 2007 Management-Labor Agreement for
Irregular Workers, an additional collective agreement. As for the family allowance not
addressed, it said that it was reasonable to provide different bonuses to regular and
irregular workers, according to employment types, duties and the length of service.
The Commission found that the respondent did not apply clauses related to the activities
of the labor union including the scope of union members and education hours for union
members who were irregular workers or applied such clauses to irregular workers
differently than regular workers, and that the respondent gave lower bonuses, including
family allowances, to irregular workers than regular workers or did not give them at all,
even though it improved part of its bonus and benefits system.
The Commission recommended that "O" Company apply clauses of the collective
agreement related to labor union activities to irregular workers, saying that not applying
clauses of eligibility applicable to full-time officials of the labor union to irregular workers
and giving fewer union education hours to irregular workers constituted discrimination. In
addition, it recommended that "O" Company provide irregular workers with family
allowances, sick leave, comprehensive medical examinations, funeral expenses, and
long-term service leaves for eligible irregular workers. It also recommended that "O"
Company provide the same winter relief allowance and homecoming allowance to both
regular and irregular workers.