[1] Whether separate rules of employment applicable to part of workers can be prepared in one workplace according to the characteristics of occupation (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the disciplinary action is not unlawful in the case where a worker did not follow the procedure such as giving a worker an opportunity to defend himself/herself, unlike regular employees

[1] "Employment rules under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act" refers to the name of the working rules, such as service rules and wages, if it contains the contents of the working conditions. An employer does not have to prepare only one employment rules that apply uniformly to all workers belonging to the same workplace, but can establish separate employment rules that apply to part of workers according to the characteristics of the working conditions, the form of work, and the characteristics of the occupation. In this case, the total number of employment rules is one employment rules under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act.

[2] The case holding that the disciplinary action against a worker on a part-time basis is not unlawful even if it did not follow the procedure, such as giving the worker an opportunity to defend himself/herself, unlike the regular employee, unless there is any provision regarding the disciplinary procedure differently from the regular employee's death

[1] Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da30828 delivered on February 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1161)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Samsung Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu20589 delivered on September 21, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Examining the evidence relations presented by the court below in comparison with the records, the fact-finding by the court below on the grounds for disciplinary action is just, and if the facts are so true, the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs shall be justified, and there shall be no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the abuse of the right to discipline or disciplinary action. There shall be no grounds for appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act includes the working conditions such as service regulations and wages, the name of the employer is unclear. An employer does not have to prepare only one of the rules of employment that uniformly applies to all workers belonging to the same workplace, but may establish separate rules of employment that apply to part of workers according to the characteristics of the working conditions, the form of employment, and the type of occupation. In this case, the total number of the rules of employment becomes one of the rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da30828 delivered on February 28, 1992).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiffs are full-time workers, and the defendant assistant intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the "the intervenor") prepared and applied the company rules separate from the regular employees with respect to the daily worker, and that the above company rules for the daily worker did not have any provision regarding the disciplinary proceedings unlike the regular employee rules (Evidence No. 6). The court below determined that the disciplinary action is not unlawful even if the intervenor did not follow the procedure such as granting the plaintiffs an opportunity to defend themselves, unlike regular employees by applying the company rules to the regular employee in punishing the plaintiffs. In light of the above legal principles and the evidence relations stated by the court below, the court below's fact-finding and decision are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts contrary to the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the disciplinary proceedings or the daily worker.

Even if the plaintiffs' members are daily workers, they can claim retirement allowances according to the rules of employment, etc. in accordance with the rules of employment, if they actually continue to work without simple basis, regarding the period of their continuous work as the number of continuous work years, and they do not purport that daily workers should be treated the same in all respects as regular workers in applying the rules of employment, etc. due to changes in the job classification itself as permanent workers. Thus, it is not appropriate to invoke this case. There is no reason to argue that this is not appropriate.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)