Seoul Supreme Court Seocho-dong / Senior Correspondent Park Min-gyu
In principle, the employment contract takes precedence over the employment rules, but the Supreme Court has ruled that this is limited to cases where the working conditions are specifically stipulated in the labor contract.
The 3rd division of the Supreme Court (Chief Judge Ahn Cheol-sang) announced on the 8th that it had returned the case to the Gwangju District Court, breaking the original judgment that partially won the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Mr.
Mr. A was appointed as an assistant professor at the university run by School B in 1994, and then continued to be re-appointed, becoming a full professor in 2004. The school maintained the salary system until 1999, and Mr. A received the salary system at the time of his first appointment. However, the school changed the employment rules in 2000 and changed the salary system to an annual salary system, and Mr. A also received the annual salary system from that time.
Mr. A filed two lawsuits claiming the difference between the standard salary system and the actual amount received for a specific period, saying that the application of the annual salary system to him was illegal, and partially won. He also filed a lawsuit claiming the difference in salary from 2017 to 2018.
The first and second trial courts upheld Mr. A. “It is difficult for Mr. A to accept the working conditions according to the changed employment rules like a newly appointed teacher at the time of re-appointment and to admit that he has a new working relationship. However, if the rules of employment are changed unfavorably to the workers after the conclusion of the labor contract, the changed rules of employment cannot be applied in preference to the employment contract that is favorable to the workers.”
The Supreme Court’s decision was different. The court said, “Unless the worker’s individual consent is not given, the advantageous terms of the employment contract take precedence over the employment rules.” You have to see,” he said.
He continued, “The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to be paid in accordance with the school wage regulations, and did not write a separate employment contract or enter into a contract regarding working conditions such as wages. This is justified.”