JIPYONG LLC

A daily worker of a construction company (the “Worker A”) performed the duty to manage the wheel washing machine (a device for cleaning the tires of trucks to eliminate the soil dust) installed in the entrance section to/from which trucks and vehicles enter and leave at a construction site. While Worker A was working in a waiting room furnished with a desk and chair, radio, a water purifier, and a heating and cooling device, he was mainly in charge of the duty to inject a precipitant into the wheel washing machine and to clean the wheel washing area intermittently. 

Given the nature of intermittent duty assigned to the Worker A, the construction company (the employer) entered into an employment contract in the form of ‘comprehensive daily wage’, which included all the statutory payments such as overtime pay, holiday work pay, and weekly holiday pay, all as daily wages paid to the Worker A. The Worker A filed a lawsuit claiming that he was not paid the overtime pay and weekly holiday pay, etc. The first-instance court dismissed the Worker A’s claim and he filed an appeal. 

Representing the employer, JIPYONG’s Labor Team explained that it is difficult to calculate the working hours, given the nature of his intermittent duty of monitoring and surveillance. In addition, we explained specifically that the wage paid to the Worker A was higher than that calculated under the Labor Standards Act. 

Accepting the employer’s claim, the court rejected the Worker A’s appeal, finding that the comprehensive daily wage paid to him includes all of the allowances such as the overtime pay and weekly holiday pay, etc., since the contract the Worker A entered into with the employer under the comprehensive wage system satisfies all requirements for validity under the precedents of the Supreme Court.