<Anchor> The

Supreme Court judged that Hyundai-Kia Motors' collective agreement to specifically hire children of workers who died in industrial accidents was justified. It overturned the court ruling that the provision contradicted social notions, and it is likely to affect similar disputes.

This is Won Jong-jin.

<Reporter>

Mr. Lee, who joined Kia Motors in 1985, died after two years after being diagnosed with acute leukemia in 2008 after being exposed to benzene, a carcinogen while cleaning the mold.

The bereaved families demanded the hiring of Mr. Lee's children in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreement to provide special hiring of direct family members who died in work accidents.

But the company refused to do so, and the bereaved family sued.

The first and second trials raised the company's hand, saying that the special hiring provisions in effect resulted in job transfers and were invalid because they violated social order.

Even in the public pleadings held in June, the positions of the two sides were tightly opposed.

[Park Sang-hoon/Kia Motors' Attorney: As of 2019, the perceived unemployment rate of young people is about 23%. The employment inheritance clause should be considered invalid because it

hurts the fairness of hiring.] [Kim Cha-gon/Attorney on the surviving family of industrial accident workers: It is not taking the job of another person because it replaces the vacancy of the father who died of leukemia due to exposure to benzene... .] The

Supreme Court determined that the provisions of the collective agreement could not be considered invalid in the opinion of the Supreme Judge 11-2.

First of all, I saw that the court's intervention in collective agreements, which is the result of labor-management agreements, should be cautious.

It also said that the number of hiring children for workers who died from industrial accidents is very small, which does not significantly affect job seekers' employment opportunities.

[Jong-Gil Lee/Supreme Court Public Affairs Judge: The decision of the all consensus considers that the provision for the special employment of industrially injured family

members contributes to achieving practical fairness by considering the socially disadvantaged.] However, the two Supreme Court Justices said that the provision was based on the sacrifice of job seekers. They disagreed, saying it was illegal.

(Video editing: Yumira)