The Chief Justice's Final Ruling on the Social Status Issue of Non-Regular Public Employees.

On the 21st, the full bench of the Supreme Court delivered a ruling on the wage claim lawsuit of employees of the National Highway Management Institute, a subsidiary of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. The ruling, with a majority opinion of 7 to 5, addressed the issue of discrimination between regular government employees and non-regular public employees, known as non-regular contract workers. Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo and several other justices concluded that "the employment status based on individual employment contracts does not constitute a social status." Consequently, the lawsuit filed by the National Highway Management Institute employees was dismissed, confirming the plaintiffs' defeat.

 

The debate regarding the labor rights and social status of these workers will likely continue in the future.

 

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit were 513 non-regular contract workers at the National Highway Management Institute, who argued that despite performing duties identical to civil servants, they were subject to discrimination under labor standards law by not receiving regular benefits such as regular salary and bonuses. Labor standards law stipulates that "employers shall not discriminate against employees based on sex, nationality, religion, or social status" and, accordingly, the plaintiffs claimed that non-regular contract workers also fall under the category of "social status."

 

However, a majority of the Supreme Court justices determined that "the employment status based on individual employment contracts does not constitute a social status." They argued that civil servants and non-regular contract workers have distinct characteristics in terms of rank, job responsibilities, and working conditions, making them unsuitable for direct comparison.

 

Furthermore, the argument was presented that "just because the job content of civil servants and non-regular employees is similar, it does not mean that they should receive the same treatment." Civil servants' compensation is determined not by the nature of their work but by their rank and seniority, which is maintained to sustain the policy objectives of the civil service system. Thus, it was explained that even if the work is similar, different treatment may be warranted.

 

However, a minority of the Supreme Court justices insisted that "the employment status of non-regular contract workers constitutes a social status." They argued that non-regular contract workers cannot easily evade their status through their will or ability, and it is of a long-term nature, thus qualifying as a social status.

 

With this recent ruling, the chances of success for nationwide lawsuits filed by non-regular public employees against the government have decreased. Currently, similar lawsuits by non-regular contract workers are pending in the Seoul High Court and the Daegu High Court. As of the end of 2021, there were approximately 337,000 non-regular public employees in various sectors, including education institutions, local governments, public agencies, and central administrative agencies. The debate regarding the labor rights and social status of these workers will likely continue in the future.