Supreme Court ruling, Lotte Shopping


The Supreme Court decides on one case (2017du76005) on June 30, 2022.

The plaintiff was Lotte Shopping, and the defendant was the Chairman of the Central Labor Commission.

This is a case in which a worker who attends Lotte Shopping filed for unfair job change relief after returning from maternity leave in 2016.



Enlarging an image


Requests for remedy for unfair job change must first be made to each local Labor Relations Commission.

Here, if you acknowledge or reject whether the job change is correct, and apply for a retrial, the Central Labor Relations Commission examines it again.

At that time, the National Labor Relations Commission finally upheld the worker's request for relief.



Lotte Shopping then filed a claim for cancellation of the retrial for unfair ex-employment relief.

At this time, the court upheld the management's hand in the opposite direction, and the employee's side appealed to the Supreme Court.

At this time, the Supreme Court overturns the lower court and remands the case to the Seoul High Court.

The Supreme Court found it to be unfair.

Lower rank than before maternity leave


At that time, the employee who applied for unfair job change was the hiring manager.

In Lotte Shopping, a recruited manager is when an assistant-level supporter performs the managerial job that can be done by a manager-level employee.

The worker returned from working as a life culture manager (non-food corner such as clothing), but was assigned to the refrigeration and freezing sales department.

It is one level lower than the manager.

The company argued that the job title of the hiring manager was not lowered for a worker who was originally hired to take on the 'responsible' position.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a 'significant difference' between the work before the return of the worker and the work after the return.



Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the job change was unfair.

In that case, it is also a violation of Article 19(4) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

It is stated that reinstated workers on parental leave should be given the same job compared to before and after reinstatement.

Violation of this is subject to criminal punishment for the employer.

Unfavorable treatment when returning to work from parental leave


In this case, the Supreme Court first presented the standard for 'unfavorable treatment' in Article 19, Paragraph 3 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

The Supreme Court precedent had a great impact on the labor community at the time.

This is because the Supreme Court presented detailed standards for unfavorable treatment for the first time and interpreted it relatively from the side of workers.



Enlarging an image


On page 3 of the judgment, the employer shall not give any business or economic disadvantage to workers taking parental leave due to parental leave, and apply for parental leave due to unfamiliarity and fear, etc. However, it is stated that it should not interfere with the application and use of parental leave in a psychologically stable state, such as making them reluctant to return to work.

Standard 1) Disadvantages in business or economy


One of the criteria the Supreme Court saw as unfavorable treatment is business or economic disadvantage.

Let's compare it with Nam's case.

Assuming that Nam is going to a Seoul relay point, a couple or family members have to move on the weekend.

If you are married on the weekend, you will incur a round-trip transportation fee between Seoul and Busan every week.

The management initially told reporters that only two round trips would be provided.

Then, assuming that Nam visits every week, he will not be able to cover all the expenses, resulting in an economic disadvantage.



Enlarging an image


Lotte Shopping initially said that it would provide two round trips, but reversed its position that it would give all four round trips the next day.

We asked the current Lotte Shopping Super Business Headquarters workers who live in other locations.

Although the company policy states that it is two round trips, it is said that if you charge the company for transportation expenses incurred every week, you can get it back later.

In fact, the round trip cost seems to be covered.



What would have happened if the Nam family had decided to move to Seoul together?

The company must have provided Mr. Nam with a room in his residence or 300,000 won in monthly rent.

I don't know if the company would have covered all the additional costs incurred by Mr. Nam.

Criterion 2) Unfamiliarity, fear


The Supreme Court also said that the work before and after reinstatement from parental leave has changed significantly, so that workers should not feel unfamiliar or fearful.

And if such feelings make workers reluctant to return to work, it can be viewed as unfavorable treatment.



Enlarging an image


As mentioned earlier, Mr. Nam has only worked in Busan and Gyeongnam.

As he returned from maternity leave, he was assigned to Seoul.

It is believed that when Mr. Nam told him to go to the relay station in Seoul, he must have felt the unfamiliarity and fear he felt.

In addition, the management indicated over the phone that Nam would go to a relay shop in Seoul even before his reinstatement.

From Nam's point of view, of course, he is in a situation where he has no choice but to hesitate to return to work.

It is that the notification of the Seoul relay station announcement gave Nam a new feeling and fear, making him reluctant to return to work, and may not have been able to create a psychologically stable state.

Jinju Employment and Labor Office, Ministry of Employment and Labor


Nam's complaint was received at the Jinju Employment and Labor Office.

He had met the labor inspector in person in Jinju.

As much as Mr. Nam has clearly expressed his intention to punish, he will launch an investigation and listen to both sides.

Listening to the labor inspector's conversation with Mr. Nam, I can't shake the feeling that he was trying to mediate.

Nam has already found it difficult to find another job after leaving the company, and for now he has no intention of reconciling with Lotte Shopping.

SBS reporters will watch with interest until the end to see how the final judgment of the labor inspector at the Jinju Employment and Labor Office comes out.



Enlarging an image