The Supreme Court ruled that employers must comply with reinstatement orders from labor committees, even if the original contract period has ended. Refusing reinstatement on the grounds of contract expiration is deemed illegal.
According to legal sources on July 30, the Supreme Court's second division, led by Justice Eom Sang-pil, upheld a lower court's decision to impose a fine of 1.5 million won on Jo, the representative of a car dealership, for violating labor laws.
Jo notified sales representative A of contract termination just one day before the contract was set to expire in January 2019. The local labor committee deemed this an unfair labor practice and ordered Jo to reinstate A immediately. Jo contested the ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit but lost, with the reinstatement order being finalized in June 2022.
However, Jo claimed that reinstatement was impossible since the service contract with A had already ended and refused to comply with the order. He also imposed preconditions, such as requiring the submission of a surety bond, and failed to provide the necessary sales codes for A to resume work, leading to his prosecution.
Ultimately, both the first and second courts imposed a fine of 1.5 million won on Jo. They ruled that if there had been no unfair labor practice, the contract would have continued, and Jo could not unilaterally impose preconditions or evade reinstatement based on contract expiration while disregarding the finalized order.
The Supreme Court also stated, "The reinstatement order due to unfair labor practices assumes that the employer's refusal to renew the contract is invalid. Even if the original contract period has expired, the obligation to reinstate exists, and failure to comply constitutes a violation of the reinstatement order."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.