Supreme Court of Korea Rules Kumho Tire Not Obliged to Directly Employ Cafeteria Workers

[Financial News] The Supreme Court of Korea has ruled that Kumho Tire is not required to directly employ workers from partner companies who worked at the company’s factory cafeteria.
On the 2nd, according to legal sources, the Supreme Court of Korea’s First Division, presided over by Justice Ma Yong-joo, overturned the appellate court’s partial ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in a labor lawsuit filed by Mr. A and others against Kumho Tire, and remanded the case to the Gwangju High Court.
Mr. A and others joined partner companies of Kumho Tire between 1992 and 2010, working in cooking and meal service at the Gokseong Plant’s cafeteria. They filed a lawsuit, arguing that under the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers, Kumho Tire was obligated to directly employ them.
The first trial did not accept the workers’ claims. The court stated, 'The main business of Kumho Tire, which is manufacturing and selling tires, is clearly distinct in nature and content from cooking and meal service. It is difficult to conclude that Kumho Tire exercised substantial direction or command, such as issuing binding instructions regarding the performance of cooking and meal service.'
However, the appellate court recognized the existence of a worker dispatch relationship. It cited the fact that nutritionists and workers affiliated with Kumho Tire directly selected menus, and that cooking instructions prepared by the nutritionist included specific cooking methods.
The Supreme Court of Korea, however, once again overturned this judgment, stating, 'It is difficult to conclude that the plaintiffs were in a worker dispatch relationship under the direction and command of Kumho Tire.'
The Supreme Court pointed out, 'It is difficult to conclude that Kumho Tire exercised substantial direction or command over the actual performance of work, beyond simply specifying the scope of work through work instructions.'
The Court further explained, 'Nutritionists affiliated with Kumho Tire were responsible for menu selection and procurement and inspection of ingredients, while the plaintiffs performed cooking and meal service. The duties of the nutritionists and the plaintiffs were somewhat distinct and not interchangeable, so there is insufficient basis to recognize that the plaintiffs were substantially incorporated into Kumho Tire’s business.'
The Court added, 'It was necessary to specifically examine how the nutritionists and plaintiffs worked together, whether Kumho Tire issued binding instructions or commands regarding the plaintiffs’ work, and whether the company exercised general authority over work assignments or working conditions, in order to determine the existence of a worker dispatch relationship.'

jisseo@fnnews.com Seo Min-ji Reporter