On December 24, 2019, the Supreme Court held that seven MBC Daejeon Branch employees whose employment status had converted from fixed-term contract workers to non-fixed term contract workers between 2010 and 2011 (due to their employment periods exceeding the two year limit) were subject to the same rules of employment as regular employees.   

Specifically, the Supreme Court held that these workers were entitled to the same regular salary increases, base salaries, bonuses, seniority allowances and transportation reimbursements pursuant to the rules of employment applicable to regular employees. 

In this case, the workers performed the same services, in terms of scope and quantity, and in the same department as the Company’s regular employees, and there were no separate rules of employment for non-fixed term contract workers such as themselves.  

In its decision, the Supreme Court explained that the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (the “Act”) prohibits discriminatory treatment against fixed-term workers who perform the same type of work, within the same industry, as the corresponding regular workers.  In the case at issue, the non-fixed term contract workers whose service periods exceeded two years were subject to the same working conditions as the regular employees performing the same type of work and within the same industry (absent special reasons/circumstances).   

The Supreme Court’s decision makes clear that employers cannot discriminate regarding working conditions against non-fixed term contract workers who perform the same type of work, within the same industry, as regular workers.  Thus, employers should closely monitor whether there are any differences between the working conditions of non-fixed term contract workers and those of regular workers.  If any such differences exist, employers should determine whether there are justifiable reasons pursuant to their internal policies/regulations.