Precious metal workshop, deterioration after retirement … Lawsuit against the Labor Welfare Corporation
First and second trial “Consider industry, scale, gender, occupation, etc. as much as possible”
Supreme Court “Regulation using statistics in reports… restrictions inevitable”, ‘[Edaily Song Seung Hyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that the average wage used as the basis for industrial accident compensation should not be arbitrarily derived by using the contents of the monthly labor statistics report when calculating it.’,
,
,
|
, ‘According to the legal community on the 8th, the 1st Division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Kim Sunsoo) annulled the initial judgment that ruled in favor of the plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit against the Labor Welfare Corporation, demanding the cancellation of the disapproval of the revised average wage, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.’,
,
, ‘A and another person were diagnosed with occupational diseases after retiring from working at a precious metal workshop. To calculate the insurance benefits to be paid to them, the Labor Welfare Corporation calculated a special average wage. A special average wage is applied when applying the average wage under the Labor Standards Act is deemed inadequate for protecting workers.’,
,
, ‘The Corporation applied the statistical figures from the monthly labor statistics report for the year prior to the closing date of the workplace (1997) where A and the other person were employed. According to the report, the industry of A and the other person was classified as manufacturing, the scale was 10-29 regular workers, and the occupation was classified as production workers. However, gender was not separately distinguished.’,
,
, ‘A and the other person requested the Corporation to calculate the average wage based on the total monthly salary corresponding to the categories of △manufacturing △scale of 10 or more △occupation of production workers △male gender. However, the Corporation rejected the request stating that gender differentiation for production workers was not made. A and the other person filed a lawsuit to contest this decision.’,
,
, ‘The first-instance judgment granted the plaintiffs’ request stating that “when determining where the injured worker belongs to in the monthly labor statistics report, consideration of comparing factors such as industry, scale, gender, and occupation should be made as much as possible.” The second trial also made the same judgment as the first trial.’,
,
, ‘However, the Supreme Court’s decision was different. The reason given was that errors can occur if new figures are derived by using several statistical values with different criteria and survey items rather than using the values listed in the report.’,
,
, ‘The Supreme Court stated, “If the law mandates the use of statistics in reports, when seeking similar workers, there is no choice but to be limited by the statistical survey items in the report” and “It is not necessary to forcibly derive a value incorporating all four elements.”’,
,
,