Whether premium pay for holiday work and overtime work can be paid in duplicate (negative in principle)

Articles 50(1) and (2), 53(1), 55 (see current Article 55(1)), and 56 of the former Labor Standards Act (Amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 20, 2018); Articles 2(1)7, and 53(3) of the Labor Standards Act; Articles 1(2), 1(3), and 2 of the Addenda (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 29010, Jun. 29, 2018); Article 30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act (see current Article 30(1))

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da112391 Decided June 21, 2018 (Gong2018Ha, 1359)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorneys Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ansan-si (Attorney Lee Dong-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na85903 decided October 19, 2012

Of the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant, the part regarding the claim for overtime pay for holiday work is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Case progress

A. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant and worked as street cleaners.

B. From July 1, 2005 to June 2008, the Defendant implemented a 40-hour work system with the labor union to which the Plaintiffs belong, and set Saturdays and Sundays as paid holidays. From June 1, 2006 to June 2008, the Plaintiffs worked on holidays ( Saturdays and Sundays) exceeding 40 hours a week as shown in the column for “day and overtime work hours” in the attached Table 2 of the judgment of the lower court. The Defendant did not calculate the Plaintiffs’ overtime work hours and paid only the holiday work allowances without calculating the overtime work hours.

C. The Plaintiffs asserted that, while claiming overtime work allowances, holiday work allowances, annual paid leave allowances, etc. calculated on the basis of ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act, overtime work allowances, in addition to holiday work allowances, should also be paid in duplicate.

D. The lower court accepted this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant appealed against this and filed an appeal.

2. Issues and judgments

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether, in the event that a person works on a holiday in excess of 40 hours, a weekly standard working hours under the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter “former Labor Standards Act”; hereinafter “former Labor Standards Act”; and hereinafter “former Labor Standards Act”); and both hereinafter “Labor Standards Act, the term “Labor Standards Act”) should be deemed as overtime work, and whether premium pay for overtime work in addition to premium pay for holiday work should be paid in duplicate.

B. In full view of the contents and structure of Articles 50(1) and (2), 53(1), 55, and 56 of the former Labor Standards Act, Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, legislative intent and purpose that can be known through the enactment and amendment history of the former Labor Standards Act, awareness of the parties in labor relations, existing labor practices, and the provisions of the Addenda to the amended Labor Standards Act, barring any special circumstance, premium pay for holiday work and overtime work shall not be paid in duplicate (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da12391, Jun. 21, 2018).

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that premium pay for holiday work and overtime work should be paid in duplicate. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the payment of premium pay for holiday work and overtime work under the former Labor Standards Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Of the part of the judgment below against the defendant, the part of the claim for overtime pay for holiday work is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)