2013Nu12012. Revocation of a decision made to dismiss discrimination

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Plaintiff A and 53 others)

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Korea

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap30080 decided April 5, 2013

October 16, 2013

October 30, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On July 25, 2012, the Central Labor Relations Commission revoked the final decision made on the application case for a correction of discrimination between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor joining the Defendant on July 25, 2012.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and therefore, it is cited for this decision in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiffs asserts that, in the appellate court, since civil petition work allowances are paid only to public officials in charge of civil petition affairs, discrimination should be determined by whether a civil petition work allowance is paid to the person in charge of civil petition affairs. Even if the discrimination is determined based on the urgency, the comparative public officials should include not only public officials of Grades 9, 1, 2, but also public officials of Grades 7, 8, and 9 with high salary grade as well as public officials of Grade 9.

Therefore, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited earlier, civil petition service allowance is a kind of special duty allowance and is paid exceptionally to public officials in charge of civil petition affairs among public officials. Since the plaintiffs are part-time vocational counselors working at each employment center within the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office and are expected to perform the above civil petition affairs as their main duties at all times from the time of employment, it is justifiable to determine whether to discriminate against the plaintiffs by comparing the public officials who received civil petition service allowance with the public officials who received civil petition service allowance and the plaintiffs' level.

In addition, since the plaintiffs' career experience is equivalent to class 1 and class 2 of class 9, it is reasonable to compare only public officials of class 1 and class 2 of class 9, and it is also reasonable not to include public officials of class 7, 8, and class 9 of class 9 in comparable public officials.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit and all appeals are dismissed.

The presiding judge, senior judge and senior judge

Judges Noh Jeong-il

Judges Jeong Jae-ok

A person shall be appointed.