Court “Insufficient evidence that you worked every break or that your supervisor ordered you to work”
Commissioner Kim Chang-ryong of the National Police Agency visits the highway patrol in Gungnae-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do on the 29th, the first day of the Lunar New Year holiday, and checks the situation at home during the Lunar New Year holiday in the situation room. Photos have nothing to do with the content of the article. yunhap news
Former and current police officers recognized the break time as work and filed an administrative lawsuit asking for wages, but lost.
According to the legal community on the 31st, the 14th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Chief Judge Lee Sang-hoon) recently ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by 1,311 former and current police officers against the state to “pay wages”.
Earlier, the plaintiff’s police officers recognized the preparation time, such as break time and handover before shift, as working hours, and demanded a total of 11.54 billion won in wages that they had not received for three years.
The police are taking breaks for 1-3 hours a day, including lunch breaks, but according to the command and supervision of their superiors, they have to deal with tasks such as responding to complaints and emergency dispatch, which is why it is effectively equivalent to working hours.
He also claimed that he went to work 30 minutes early to take over before the shift, but he did not receive wages as overtime work was calculated in units of one hour in the civil servant remuneration work guidelines.
They have been litigating for nearly nine years, but the court did not accept their arguments.
The court explained the reason for the ruling, saying, “It is not enough to admit that I was practically under the direction and supervision of a superior during the break.”
It is difficult to admit that a superior commanding and supervising was actually present only with evidence such as the work diary issued by the plaintiff. If you submit it, it will be recognized as work.
Regarding the ‘preparation time’ claimed by the police officers, I saw that there was insufficient evidence to admit that there was an order to work 30 minutes before the start time, or that they actually prepared for 30 minutes every day.
The police officers appealed against the judgment of the first instance.
In August of last year, the Supreme Court confirmed the second trial ruling that the security guards had to wear work clothes even during breaks to respond to unexpected complaints from residents in a wage claim filed by apartment security guards as working hours.
