임금
The judgment below
Among plaintiffs B, D,K, N,O, P, Q, R, T, U,C, AD, AE, AJ, AJ, AM, AM, AR, AS, BA, BB, BD, BH, BO, BP, BP.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the regular bonus and holiday allowance, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s regular bonus and holiday allowance paid only to workers who are in office as of the payment date among the production skilled workers pursuant to the instant collective agreement and the Defendant’s salary regulations do not constitute ordinary wage, as it lacks fixedness.
Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on ordinary wages, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. As to the allowances of 4/3
A. In order for a certain wage to belong to ordinary wages, it must have the nature of uniformly paid.
A uniform payment includes not only the payment to all workers, but also the payment to all workers who meet certain conditions or standards.
Here, “specified condition” should be a fixed condition in light of the concept of ordinary wage to calculate a fixed and average wage.
In addition, considering the fact that the ordinary wage is a concept that evaluates the value of the contractual work, the standard for determining whether the wage paid to all workers within a certain scope is a daily rate, the conditions related to the assessment of the value of the contractual work, such as the contents of the work or technology and experience, should be considered.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da89399, Dec. 18, 2013). (B)
The judgment below
The reasons and records reveal the following facts.
1) Workers engaged in the Defendant’s productive skilled workers are classified into weekly work and weekly work. In the case of a shift, an average of 42 hours per week, even if they do not engage in a separate overtime work, causing two hours per week overtime work. Article 12 subparag. 2 of the Defendant’s rules of employment, takes into account the Defendant’s 42 hours work per week, overtime hours per week.