Excluding Reinstatement After Recognizing Unfair Dismissal Is Illegal... Court: “Right to Contract Renewal Cannot Be Limited to a Single Instance”

[Financial News] The court has ruled that it was unlawful for the National Labor Relations Commission to recognize the unfair dismissal of a contract worker but only order payment of wages, without reinstatement to the original position. The decision clarifies that the right to contract renewal cannot be limited to a single instance.
According to legal sources on the 29th, the Administrative Division 1 of the Seoul Administrative Court, presided over by Judge Yang Sang-yoon, ruled in favor of Mr. A in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the retrial decision by the National Labor Relations Commission regarding unfair dismissal. The verdict was delivered last October.
Mr. A had worked as a conductor for B Orchestra under a two-year contract. However, in May 2020, B Orchestra notified Mr. A of the contract’s expiration and processed his mandatory retirement as of June 30 of the same year. This action was based on internal regulations that set the retirement age for fixed-term workers as June 30 or December 31 of the year they turn 60.
Controversy arose when a successor older than Mr. A was hired. Mr. A claimed unfair dismissal and sought remedy from both the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission and the National Labor Relations Commission, but both rejected his claim, stating the retirement was legitimate. Mr. A then filed an administrative lawsuit, and the court ruled that the change in workplace regulations was unfavorable to the employee and did not meet the required conditions, so it could not be applied to Mr. A, thereby overturning the commission’s decision.
After the previous decision was overturned, in June of last year, the National Labor Relations Commission acknowledged Mr. A’s unfair dismissal but only ordered payment of wages equivalent to the renewed contract period, instead of reinstatement. The commission reasoned that the right to contract renewal was recognized only once. Mr. A filed another lawsuit seeking to overturn this decision.
The court once again ruled in favor of Mr. A. The court stated, "It is difficult to conclude that the employment contract between Mr. A and B Orchestra would have been renewed only once," and added, "The commission’s decision, which was based on the premise that the right to contract renewal is recognized only once, is unlawful and must be overturned."
The court particularly focused on B Orchestra’s contract management practices. Although there are evaluation criteria for determining contract renewal for members in such positions, the court found no evidence that Mr. A’s work attitude or job performance was problematic.
The court further noted, "There is also no reason to believe that the employment contract would have been renewed only once, given Mr. A’s previous work attitude, disciplinary record, relationships with members, and harmony among employees."
Additionally, due to the nature of the conductor’s role, the court determined that age alone does not make it difficult to perform the job. The fact that Mr. A’s successor was older was also cited as a basis for this conclusion.
B Orchestra argued that an internal regulation was revised in July 2020 to require open competitive recruitment upon contract expiration, and therefore Mr. A no longer had the right to contract renewal. However, this argument was rejected, as the regulation was enacted after Mr. A’s dismissal and could not be applied retroactively.
The court added, "B Orchestra has failed to properly assert or prove any reasonable grounds to believe that the employment contract with Mr. A would not have been repeatedly renewed. Their claim is merely that repeated renewals would grant Mr. A an unfair lifetime position, which should not be allowed."
scottchoi15@fnnews.com Choi Eun-sol Reporter