Refusal to hire bus driver for ‘kidney disability’ is “unfair dismissal”

▲ Bus driver Mr. Kang (49), who was dismissed for kidney failure, held a press conference in front of the Seoul Court Complex in Seocho-gu, Seoul right after the appeal was made on the afternoon of the 5th by the Korea Federation for the Prevention of Discrimination against the Disabled, the Gyeongbuk Labor Human Rights Center, and the Gyeongsan Center for Independent Living of the Disabled. are doing

The court ruled that refusing to hire a city bus driver on the grounds that he had a kidney disorder constituted unfair dismissal. The court ruled that if the driver received adequate hemodialysis treatment, the bus operation would not be affected.

On the 5th, the 10th administrative division of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Lee Won-hyeong) appealed the middle and old age in the appeals court against the Central Labor Relations Commission for unfair dismissal remedies against a bus driver, Mr. dismissed and the plaintiff prevailed. It has been over a year and 10 months since Kang filed the lawsuit.

Overturns the decision of the middle and old workers and the bus driver wins
1st and 2nd trial “dismissal, there is no reasonable reason”

Kang joined Korea Wide Pohang as a city bus driver in February 2019. However, the company verbally notified the cancellation of the job a month later. At the time of the interview, he was hiding the fact that he was receiving hemodialysis three times a week due to kidney failure.

In response, Kang filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission of Korea, claiming that dismissal because he was disabled was discriminatory, and applied for unfair dismissal relief to the Gyeongbuk Provincial Labor Commission. When the verbal notice of dismissal became a problem, the company reinstated Mr. Kang.

However, about a month later, the company again notified Kang of refusal to hire him. The reason was that he was concerned about his physical ability due to chronic renal failure and that he falsely requested a leave of absence for hemodialysis. Kang also claimed that there were business mistakes, such as causing a safety accident on the bus and leaving the bus early.

Kang knocked on the Ginowe door again. Ginowi rejected the request, saying, “There is a reasonable reason for refusal of employment and there are no procedural flaws.” Kang filed a lawsuit against the company in January of last year, as the middle and senior citizens maintained their initial judgment.

The first trial overturned the judgment of the middle and old workers and cited Kang’s claim, saying, “There is no objectively reasonable reason for the company’s refusal to hire.” The court ruled, “If Kang receives hemodialysis treatment well, it does not appear that there will be any difficulties in bus operation.” .

Kang’s doctor’s opinion that hemodialysis would not interfere with work life served as the basis for the decision. The court explained, “The date and time of treatment can be changed and the time period for receiving treatment varies, so if the dispatch schedule is announced in advance, there will be no problem for Kang to provide work.”

In addition, according to the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities and Remedy for Rights (Act on the Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities), it was determined that the company has an obligation to adjust working hours so that Mr. Kang can combine treatment and work. This means that even if the working hours are adjusted, it does not impose an excessive burden on the management. Regarding the company’s claim that the company hid the disease in the interview, the court explained, “Since the question was about a health problem that could be a problem at work, it cannot be considered false that the answer was ‘there is no problem’.”

Bus driver side “Dismissal of disabled people, accept the verdict”

The Intermediate and Labor Commission appealed in February saying that the judgment of the first trial was wrong, but the appeals court also found that the judgment of the first trial was correct.

Attorney Yeram Kwak (law firm Ohwol), representing Kang, said, “Even though the Anti-Discrimination Act explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in certain areas, the company feels a vague management burden due to prejudice against people with disabilities. He said, “(the company and the Central Committee) should not harass the party through useless appeals and respect and accept the judgment of the appeals court.” Kim Seong-yeon, secretary general of the Solidarity for the Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, said, “This judgment is very important because it gives courage to other people who have been fired for disability reasons.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *