The worker, whose claim was dismissed, filed a lawsuit in the Labor Court, claiming that he was under pressure, did not reply to his email, and had a friend’s salary increase but no salary increase. .. Workers claimed to have been exposed to discrimination and legitimately terminated their employment contracts for these reasons, and demanded severance pay, compensation for discrimination, and collection of labor claims from the defendant.
A lawyer at the defendant’s institution stated that the plaintiff was absent and filed a retroactive health report. A lawyer at an institution claiming that there was no discrimination against him in terms of wages, as seen in the pay slip showing the wages of employees who performed the same duties as the plaintiff, demanded that the plaintiff dismiss the unpaid accounts receivable. Did. The court ruled that the case was partially acceptable, stating that plaintiffs were not given salary increases to other workers, contrary to the principle of equality. The defendant has appealed the decision. The Local Court of Appeals has decided to invalidate the Labor Court’s decision. When this decision was appealed, the Supreme Court’s Ninth Civil Assembly intervened. The Supreme Court ruled that workers who did not accept the request for a salary increase could not pay discrimination compensation.
Precedent decision from the judiciary
The Supreme Court’s Ninth Civil Council ruled that reasons such as employee wages not being raised or mail not being returned are not considered violations of anti-discrimination. Workers whose salary increase request is denied by precedent cannot claim compensation.
“The purpose is to prevent different processing.”
The ruling said, “The principle of equal treatment is valid in all areas of law, and from a labor law perspective, it is a fair and objective reason. In this respect, the employer’s right to control is limited. For example, the prohibition of discrimination by employers prohibits arbitrary discrimination between workers in the workplace, but the obligation of equal treatment requires that all workers be placed in the same situation without discrimination. It is not intended to do, but to prevent different treatments for workers in equal positions.
In a specific dispute, plaintiff workers vary by employer, even though the wages of all other workers have risen, for example, the wages of all other workers have risen. He did not abandon the reemployment lawsuit he filed because he was treated, and he filed a lawsuit for these reasons, so his email was not replied and pressured. He claimed to have been exposed to discrimination and demanded the compensation provided in Article 5 of the Labor Code. Plaintiff’s request was accepted because the increase given to other workers by the Court of First Instance was not given to plaintiff.
“Don’t prove enough evidence”
However, the result does not match the contents of the file. In order for the discrimination compensation conditions stipulated in Article 5 of Labor Law No. 4857 to occur in accordance with the resolved case law, differences in treatment by employers must be based on reasons such as race, language, and politics. I have. Thoughts, beliefs, and articles should be narrowly interpreted. The plaintiff’s worker was unable to prove by method and sufficient evidence that he was discriminated against for possible reasons within the scope of this article.
Therefore, it is not possible to consider reasons such as the plaintiff’s wages not being raised or the mail not being replied as a non-discrimination breach. As a result, the decision on compensation was clearly against the law and the decision of the Local Court of Appeals had to be revoked.