The Supreme Court ruled that Samsung Electronics Service, a company responsible for the repair, maintenance, and servicing of Samsung Electronics products, must recognize employees who have been dispatched from partner companies for more than two years as regular workers. After 12 years since 1,335 repair workers filed a lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Service in 2013, only one plaintiff remains who has finally had their rights as a regular employee acknowledged.
The Supreme Court's Civil Division 3, chaired by Justice Lee Heung-koo, dismissed an appeal from Samsung Electronics Service on Feb. 12 concerning the lawsuit filed by a repair worker identified as A, confirming a partial victory for A in the lower court's ruling.
A worked as a dispatched laborer for Samsung Electronics Service from June 2004, affiliated with a partner company of Samsung Electronics, performing repair work on Samsung Electronics products. In 2013, A filed a lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Service, stating, "Since the dispatch period has exceeded two years, I request to be recognized as a regular worker of Samsung Electronics Service and to receive the unpaid wage differences so far." At that time, the number of workers from partner companies who sued Samsung Electronics Service reached 1,335, including A.
According to the law on the protection of dispatched workers, if a dispatched worker continues to work at the same business site for more than two years, the company is obligated to directly employ the worker. This is specified in the law as an "employment obligation."
Samsung Electronics Service countered, saying, "We did not exercise direct or indirect supervision or orders over employees affiliated with partner companies" and asserted, "A is not a dispatched worker of Samsung Electronics Service."
The first trial sided with Samsung Electronics Service. The court stated, "Samsung Electronics Service did not directly participate in the recruitment process of A's affiliated partner company" and noted, "The repair workers affiliated with partner companies, including A, had different tasks from those directly employed by Samsung Electronics Service." After losing in the first trial, 1,331 of the remaining plaintiffs, excluding A and three others, gave up on the lawsuit.
The second trial overturned the first trial's ruling and granted a partial victory to A and three others. The court remarked, "Samsung Electronics Service assigned tasks to employees of partner companies, including A, using its own system" and added, "Additionally, it distributed the 'Customer Service Manual' to the employees of partner companies, requiring them to follow the company's method of task execution." It concluded that "A appears to have worked under the direct and indirect supervision or orders of Samsung Electronics Service" and ordered Samsung Electronics Service to pay A a wage difference of 16 million won.
The Supreme Court also stated that "the conclusion of the lower court, which found that A had a labor dispatch relationship with Samsung Electronics Service, is justifiable," thereby confirming the lower court's ruling.
However, during the Supreme Court proceedings, three individuals abandoned the lawsuit. Consequently, the only plaintiff who received the final victory verdict was A.