All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2015Da233579, 233586 Decided February 6, 2020 【Wage; Unjust Enrichment】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Elements of validity of a wage payment agreement or a collective agreement based on the inclusive wage system and standard for determining whether there was an agreement reached as to the inclusive wage system [2] In a case where Party B, employed by Company A as a bus driver, sought payment for additional statutory allowances against Company A following recalculation of ordinary wages, the case holding that: (a) the wage agreement concluded by the trade union to which Party B, etc. is affiliated and Company A states that overtime allowances and night work allowances ought to be identified and paid separately from base pay; (b) the wage system under the wage agreement cannot be deemed to include an agreement on the inclusive wage system; (c) although it is stipulated in the wage agreement contract that the payment of wages shall be based on the inclusive system, such provision is inconsistent with the practices of wage payment in Company A; (d) nonetheless, the lower court determined that an inclusive wage agreement was explicitly established and dismissed the claim filed by Party B, etc., and, (e) in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine |
|
