The case holding that the decision of the National Human Rights Commission on the company's recommendation for compensation for damages is lawful on the ground that the company's payment of basic wages less than that of male workers engaged in a business with similar mental and physical burden constitutes "discriminatory act based on gender without reasonable grounds" under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the National Human Rights Commission Act.

The case holding that the decision of the National Human Rights Commission to recommend the company to compensate for damages due to the unfair discrimination against female workers in accordance with Articles 44(1)1 and 42(4)2 of the National Human Rights Commission Act, on the ground that the company that manufactures electronic equipment paid a basic wage less than that of male workers engaged in a business having similar mental and physical burden to female workers constitutes “discriminatory act based on gender without reasonable grounds” under Article 2 subparag. 4 of the National Human Rights Commission Act, which constitutes “discriminatory act based on gender without reasonable grounds.”

Article 2 subparag. 4, Article 42(4)2, and Article 44(1)1 of the National Human Rights Commission Act

1. The term "the term" means "the term or "the term" means "the term or "the term";

National Human Rights Commission (Attorney Lee Jae-young, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

May 15, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's decision to recommend compensation for damages against the plaintiff in a case of appeal against employment discrimination based on gender No. 232 of October 8, 2007 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a company producing electronic equipment, such as satellite radio and GPS, and Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 8 (hereinafter “Appellants”) are contractual workers employed by the Plaintiff until August 2005.

B. On March 5, 2007, the petitioners filed a petition against the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “instant petition”) on the ground that the Defendant was paid less wages than Nonparty 9, etc. of male workers in charge of the same work while serving in the Plaintiff Company compared to Nonparty 9, etc., on the ground that they were paid less wages as indicated in the attached base pay details.

C. Accordingly, on October 8, 2007, the Defendant accepted the instant petition and decided that the Plaintiff Company paid less wages to a female petitioner than the above non-party 9 was engaged in a discriminatory act based on gender without any reasonable ground as stipulated under Article 2 subparag. 4 of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea Act, and notified the Plaintiff Company of November 14 of the same year that the Plaintiff would compensate the petitioner for damages with respect to the non-party’s unfavorable treatment compared to male workers on the wage condition (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff company's assertion

For the following reasons, the Plaintiff Company asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful.

(1) Since the instant petition was filed more than one year after the date on which the cause of the petition occurred, the Defendant should have rejected the instant petition in accordance with the main sentence of Article 32(1)4 of the National Human Rights Commission Act, and subsequently, investigated and determined it.

(2) Article 25 of the National Human Rights Commission Act only stipulates that the defendant may recommend the related agencies, etc. to improve or correct policies and practices or present their opinions. Therefore, the defendant has no authority to recommend the plaintiff company to compensate for damages.

(3) Unlike the petitioners who mainly engaged in the assembly business, Nonparty 9 was mainly in charge of the ordinary car business, and the ordinary car business was paid a monthly amount of KRW 5-60,000 more than the petitioner, and thus, the Plaintiff Company did not pay the petitioner less wages on the ground that the petitioner is female.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) On August 2005, the petitioner entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff Company on a contractual basis for the following periods, and was dismissed from the Plaintiff Company on or around August 2005, while he was in charge of production by the SDR or the IDR Department.

Nonparty 1: October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2005

Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3: each of January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006;

Nonparty 4: May 1, 2004 to October 31, 2005

Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 6: each of August 1, 2004 to January 31, 2006

Nonparty 7: December 1, 2002 to May 31, 2006

Nonparty 8: from February 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005

(2) The production workers of the Plaintiff Company are classified into contract workers, dispatched workers, and regular workers, and the ratio of male workers was about 4 to 13% (based on around 2002 to 205).

(3) The Plaintiff Company has publicly announced the recruitment of new production workers with the content that “to obtain experience in production or electronic equipment assembly.” The recruitment of new production workers was not included in the content that the recruitment of male and female is different depending on work process or process. Since the Plaintiff Company’s production work did not require any special technology, new employees were simply engaged in the production process in each process according to the placement of work, and there was no classification of work by gender in the placement of work, and there was no classification of work by gender in the placement of work, and the head of each department could change the placement of work from time to time according to work volume or demand for human resources.

(4) The production sector of the Plaintiff Company was divided into six sections of the IRD, SR, GPS, SPD, QC, and MBCO depending on the product type produced, and the remaining departments except QC departments were composed of several production LINE, and 10-15 workers were placed in one production LINE and were engaged in assembly, inspection, and packing of the following contents. The work process of each department was almost similar.

The assembly and inspection process consists of ① code printing, ② printing, ② attaching trademarks and protective tapes, ④ attaching marks, ③ attaching identification numbers, ⑤ attaching strings, ④ attaching assistive devices, ⑤ antenna electricity and radio string test, and ② packaging processes were composed of ① code printing, ② attaching marks and protective tapes, ③ attaching marks, ④ attaching identification numbers, ⑤ attaching strings, ⑤ attaching bar codes on boxes, and ② transferring back to the next stage of work after being posted by one worker at each stage.

(5) The non-party company: (a) stored the products that completed the above process in the factory room and transported them to containers at a time on a certain quantity (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary carwork”); (b) the commercial car work was carried out in a week more than once a week; and (c) all male and female workers employed in the production sector were mobilized.

(6) Around April 2002, Nonparty 9 reported a job offer advertisement to recruit arbbs to assemble electronic equipment, and supported the Plaintiff Company. The Plaintiff Company, at the interview, asked Nonparty 9 about whether there was any string of the dam quality and any experience in scraping, etc., and then employed Nonparty 9. Nonparty 9 entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff Company on December 1, 2002 while the Plaintiff Company was working for arbs at the Plaintiff Company. After becoming a regular employee, Nonparty 14 and Nonparty 15, who is a female employee, were in charge of mring at each time given to the Plaintiff Company 3 LINE. Meanwhile, in the case of 2 LINE, Nonparty 14 and Nonparty 15, who is a female employee, were in charge of arbsing.

(7) From March 13, 2007 to August 2007, the Defendant heard the statements of the petitioner and the witness, and investigated the case by receiving relevant data from the Plaintiff Company or on-site investigation into the Plaintiff Company. The details of the basic salary that the petitioner and the Nonparty 9 received from December 2003 to August 2005 are as stated in the attached Table.

(8) The Defendant was dismissed on or around August 2005 by the petitioner, and thereafter, the Plaintiff Company entrusted all production works to an external company, and subsequently, led to the instant disposition that recommended the petitioner to compensate for damages by determining that the instant petition was inappropriate to recommend improvement of policies and practices.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5-1 through 3, 6, 7-1, 2, 8-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(d) Markets:

(1) As to the plaintiff's first argument

Article 32(1)4 of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea Act provides that the defendant shall reject the petition if the petition is received after one or more years from the date on which the facts causing the petition occurred and the statute of limitations or civil prescription with respect to the facts causing the petition is not completed and the defendant is to investigate the case.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant decided to investigate the petition of this case and reached the disposition of this case. On August 31, 2005, the petitioner was dismissed from the plaintiff company and filed the petition of this case on March 5, 2007, and the content of the petition of this case was discriminated against the petitioner on the ground that the plaintiff company was female. The contents of the petition of this case are as follows. The contents of criminal punishment subject to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding 20 million won under Articles 37(2) and 8(1) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, which is subject to criminal punishment for which the business owner is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding 20 million won, the petition of this case was filed from August 31, 2005 to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and thus the defendant had reached the disposition of this case pursuant to the proviso of Article 32(1)4 of the National Human Rights Commission

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(2) As to the plaintiff's second argument

Article 44(1) of the National Human Rights Commission Act provides that when the defendant determines that a violation of human rights or a discriminatory act has occurred as a result of investigating the petition, the respondent and the head of the agency, organization, or supervisory agency (hereinafter referred to as "affiliated agency, etc.") may recommend the implementation of safeguard measures under each subparagraph of Article 42(4) and the correction or improvement of Acts and subordinate statutes, systems, policies, and practices. Article 42(4)2 of the same Act, which provides for the matters that the defendant may include in the case of a decision in lieu of conciliation, provides for "refusal, compensation for damages, and other necessary remedies" and thus, the defendant has the authority to recommend the head of the agency, etc. to take such measures as compensation for damages.

Therefore, the above argument of the first-party plaintiff on different premise is without merit.

(3) On the third argument of the plaintiff

(A) According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the petitioner and the non-party 9 are workers in the production of the plaintiff company, who are placed in each stage of the continuous work process leading to assembly, inspection, packing, and commercial work and are engaged in a series of similar physical and mental burdens as a cooperative body. Unlike the above, there is no evidence to acknowledge the reasonable grounds for the non-party 9 to receive the basic wage compared to the petitioner, and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion that the petitioner was in charge of the assembly work, while the non-party 9 was in charge of the assembly work as the petitioner, while the non-party 9 was in charge of the commercial work with a higher physical burden, it is not justified to give higher wages to the male worker, and it does not seem that there is no work requiring any higher effort and technology than the assembly work requiring small, concentrated and experience).

(B) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that there are female workers with higher basic level than Nonparty 10, Nonparty 11, Nonparty 12, and Nonparty 13, etc., and therefore, Nonparty 9 does not necessarily receive higher wages than female workers. However, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 8-1, the time when Nonparty 10, Nonparty 11, Nonparty 12, and Nonparty 13 entered the Plaintiff company is recognized as having a fact among them from around 193 to around 196, and it is difficult to consider their basic level as the comparison of the instant petition. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff Company recommended the Plaintiff Company to compensate for damages arising from the non-party 9’s act of providing labor of the same value as that of the petitioner, which is less basic level to the petitioner than that of the petitioner, constitutes a discriminatory act by gender with no reasonable ground as provided by Article 2 subparag. 4 of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea, and thus, constitutes a discriminatory act by gender with no reasonable ground as provided by Articles 44(1)1 and 42(4)2 of the same Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sung Sung-hee (Presiding Judge)