A fine has been finalized for a Hyundai Motor sales agency owner who did not reinstate a sales employee despite a court ruling that found unfair dismissal.
The Supreme Court's Second Division (presiding Justice Eom Sang-pil) said on the 30th that it finalized a lower court ruling that sentenced a Hyundai Motor sales agency head surnamed Cho, indicted on charges of violating the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, to a fine of 1.5 million won on the 5th of last month.
On Jan. 14, 2019, Cho notified sales employee A at his agency of "expiration of the car sales service contract" and did not enter into a renewal. A had worked at the agency since 2012, and the most recent sales service contract was signed on Jan. 16, 2017.
A applied for relief to the Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming that Cho's refusal to renew the contract was an unfair labor practice. The regional commission judged that Cho's refusal to renew A's contract was an unfair labor practice and ordered A reinstated to the original position. Cho objected, but the Central Labor Relations Commission reached the same conclusion. The Seoul Administrative Court also ruled to the same effect, and it was finalized in Jun. 2022.
However, Cho did not reinstate A, demanding first the submission of surety documents. At a collective bargaining session with the union to which A belongs, Cho said, "I have no intention of reinstating A to the original position." Under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, violating a finalized relief order issued after filing an administrative lawsuit is punishable by up to three years in prison or a fine of up to 30 million won.
The first trial sentenced Cho to a fine of 1.5 million won. During the proceedings, Cho argued, "Since A's sales service contract ended due to expiration of the contract term before the relief order was finalized (Jun. 2022), it cannot be said that the order was violated," but the first-instance court did not accept this. It added, "It is reasonable to view that Cho had intent to violate the relief order."
Cho appealed, but the second trial dismissed the appeal. The appellate court said, "Cho set 'submission of surety documents' as a precondition for A's reinstatement," adding, "In light of the purpose of the provisions of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, it is, in principle, not permissible for an employer, ahead of complying with a finalized relief order, to attach a precondition that a worker perform a specific act without any condition on the employer's part."
The Supreme Court dismissed Cho's final appeal. The court said, "When a labor relations commission issues a relief order on the ground that an employer's refusal to renew a contract around the time a labor or services contract expires constitutes an unfair labor practice, it is clear that the order requires reinstatement to the original position even after the original contract term has expired."