Supreme Court “Construction Daily Wages, Joint Responsibility between the Chief and the Construction Company”

▲ A view of the Supreme Court building in Seocho-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul.

Even if the labor supplier paid the workers’ wages first, the Supreme Court ruled that the worker’s employer was the contractor who subcontracted the work, so the contractor would be jointly responsible for paying the wages.

The second part of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Min Yu-suk) stated that in the appeals court for a service cost claim filed by Company A, a manpower supplier, against Company B, a subcontracted construction company, the claim under Article 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act of the lower court was reversed and the case was returned to the Suwon District Court 30 said work. According to Article 44-2 of the Labor and Employment Act, if a subcontractor fails to pay wages in the case of two or more subcontracts in the construction industry, the immediate supervisor is jointly and jointly with the subcontractor to pay the workers’ wages.

Company B subcontracted the construction work from the original office and then subcontracted the formwork to Mr. C, an unregistered construction company. Company A signed a manpower supply contract with C and supplied workers to the construction site. However, Mr. C was only formally an employee of Company A and worked as an unregistered business operator. The number of workers and the timing of their input were decided independently by Mr. C, and he requested the manpower from Company A. Company A paid the remaining wages to the workers first, after deducting the placement fee of the construction worker. Company A filed a lawsuit against Company B saying that it did not receive part of the construction payment even though it supplied manpower to Company B.

The first trial said, “Company B, the immediate supervisor who subcontracted a part of the construction to Mr. C, who is an unregistered construction contractor, is jointly responsible with Mr. C for the unpaid wages to the workers used by Mr. C, regardless of whether or not he paid the subcontract price. We lose,” citing Company A’s claim.

The appellate court overturned the first trial, saying, “Company C has managed the construction site as an employee of Company A, and Company A has been paying wages directly to workers.”

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court. The Supreme Court said, “If a manpower supplier supplies manpower as a paid job placement business under the Job Security Act, so that an employment contract is established between the supplier and the worker, then the employer of the worker is the company receiving the manpower. It is fair to see.” He continued, “The workers supplied by Company A are only formally employees of Company A, but they appear to have performed construction work under the direction and order of Mr. C. “It is quite reasonable to think that the employer of the workers is Mr. C.” The Supreme Court ruled that “Company B is the direct supervisor of Mr. C, who is a subcontractor, and is responsible for paying wages in solidarity with Mr. C.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.