2014Da41520 Wages

Plaintiff 1 and 15 others

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

[Defendant-Appellant]

Dong Transportation Corporation

Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Na19241 Decided June 3, 2014

January 16, 2020

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16

A. Pursuant to Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter “former Labor Standards Act”), holiday work allowances that should be paid in addition to 50/100 of ordinary wages as holiday work allowances include not only weekly holiday work prescribed in Article 55 of the same Act, but also daily work determined by a collective agreement or employment rules, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da14089, May 14, 1991). Whether a holiday is determined should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the language and text of the provisions related to holiday work in a collective agreement or employment rules, the background and system of regulating working hours in the same industry as the relevant workplace, the name and amount of wages actually paid, and the method of calculating the amount of payment (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da14089, Aug. 14, 2019).

B. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following. (1) Article 2 (4) of the Wage Agreement signed on June 30, 201 by the Daejeon Metropolitan City Bus Workers’ Union and the Daejeon Metropolitan City Bus Transport Business Association representing the Defendant (hereinafter “the wage agreement of this case”) (hereinafter “the wage agreement of this case”) provides that the number of monthly work days shall be 20 days (20 days in February). Article 6 (1) provides that “The number of monthly work days shall be 20 days (20 days in February).” Article 6 (Extension, Night, and Holiday Work Allowance) provides that “The allowance shall be 50/1000 higher than the ordinary wage of Article 5 of the wage agreement and the number of working days shall be calculated as 2 days if any worker continues to work on the day before a day, and if the number of monthly work days exceeds 22 days, it shall be paid in accordance with the wage calculation schedule.

2) According to the wage calculation table attached to the wage agreement of this case (hereinafter “the wage calculation table of this case”), in case where the number of working days per month exceeds the full number of workers is between 23 and 26 days (in case of February, between 21 and 24 days), "the extended allowance of 9 hours calculated by adding 50% to the rate of 50% per day" is paid, while the number of working days per month exceeds 26 days (in case of February, exceeding 24 days).

For each day, the basic salary, the 1-day extension allowance added by 50% of the Si salary standard, and the 8-hour holiday allowance corresponding to 50% of the Si salary standard, etc. shall be paid respectively.

3) The Plaintiffs and the Defendant set one day a week as a weekly holiday, and the Plaintiffs did not work on the said weekly holiday. The Defendant, separately from weekly holiday allowances, paid to the Plaintiffs “Holiday allowances equivalent to 50% of the basic salary of eight hours per day only for the day exceeding 26 days of work during the hours of overtime (24 days in February) as set out in the wage calculation schedule of this case.”

C. The lower court determined that the Plaintiffs’ claim for a holiday allowance cannot be accepted on the premise of the foregoing facts, based on the following circumstances.

1) Since the wage calculation table of this case constitutes part of the wage agreement of this case by agreement between the parties, it is effective as a part of the wage agreement of this case. 2) It constitutes a holiday in which all working days after delivery are to pay holiday allowances.

shall not be subject to an appeal.

3) Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the wage calculation table of this case, which provides that holiday work allowances shall be paid only when working in excess of 26 days in the case of the remaining months except for two months, and 24 days in the case of February, violates Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act.

D. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, although the lower court partially erred in its judgment, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s workplace stipulated that “day exceeding 26 days of monthly work (24 days in February) out of the total working days (24 days in February) is stipulated as “days”. Therefore, the lower court’s conclusion rejecting the Plaintiffs’ claim seeking payment of holiday work allowances for all overtime work hours is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on holiday work allowances under the Labor Standards Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the appeal by Plaintiffs 1, 10, and 14, the above Plaintiffs did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, and did not submit the grounds of appeal within the submission period.

3. Conclusion

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 Jo Hee-de

Justices Kim Jae-in

Justices Min You-sook of the District Court

Justices Lee Jae-hwan