Decisions

All

TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2015Do676 Decided May 10, 2019 【Violation of the Minimum Wage Act】 [full Text]
Summary
[1] Validity of the agreement that the taxi company (employer) made with the taxi driver labor union to reduce only contractual work hours, without changing the actual working environment or work hours, to appear as if it was increasing the amount of fixed hourly wages calculated based on contractual work hours when, in fact, the employer intended to avoid having the fixed wage amount, excluding wages calculated based on the output pursuant to the fixed daily rate out of the incoming fares that taxi drivers pay to the taxi company, hover below the minimum wage (held: invalid) Whether this legal doctrine is likewise applicable in a case where an employer revises the rules of employment on reducing contractual work hours based on consent from a majority of the labor union, which are mostly comprised of taxi drivers, or employees (affirmative) [2] In the event that there is a rational basis to challenge the existence of an employer’s duty to pay the difference of wages hovering below the minimum wage amount, whether the employer may be deemed to have committed an intentional violation of Articles 6(1) and 28 of the former Minimum Wage Act (negative) Criteria for determining whether there is a rational basis to challenge the existence or absence and scope of the employer’s duty to pay the difference of wages below the minimum wage amount If the employer is recognized to have paid ex post wages below the minimum wage amount according to the calculation based on the previous contractual work hours, on the grounds that the provision on contractual work hours under the collective agreement or the rules of agreement providing for the reduction of contractual work hours constitutes evasion of the law and is, thus, invalid, whether such circumstance may serve as the basis to readily conclude that the employer committed an intentional violation of Articles 6(1) and 28 of the former Minimum Wage Act (negative)

TITLE

Supreme Court Decision 2015Do676 Decided May 10, 2019 【Violation of the Minimum Wage Act】 [full Text]

Summary

[1] Validity of the agreement that the taxi company (employer) made with the taxi driver labor union to reduce only contractual work hours, without changing the actual working environment or work hours, to appear as if it was increasing the amount of fixed hourly wages calculated based on contractual work hours when, in fact, the employer intended to avoid having the fixed wage amount, excluding wages calculated based on the output pursuant to the fixed daily rate out of the incoming fares that taxi drivers pay to the taxi company, hover below the minimum wage (held: invalid)
Whether this legal doctrine is likewise applicable in a case where an employer revises the rules of employment on reducing contractual work hours based on consent from a majority of the labor union, which are mostly comprised of taxi drivers, or employees (affirmative)
[2] In the event that there is a rational basis to challenge the existence of an employer’s duty to pay the difference of wages hovering below the minimum wage amount, whether the employer may be deemed to have committed an intentional violation of Articles 6(1) and 28 of the former Minimum Wage Act (negative)
Criteria for determining whether there is a rational basis to challenge the existence or absence and scope of the employer’s duty to pay the difference of wages below the minimum wage amount
If the employer is recognized to have paid ex post wages below the minimum wage amount according to the calculation based on the previous contractual work hours, on the grounds that the provision on contractual work hours under the collective agreement or the rules of agreement providing for the reduction of contractual work hours constitutes evasion of the law and is, thus, invalid, whether such circumstance may serve as the basis to readily conclude that the employer committed an intentional violation of Articles 6(1) and 28 of the former Minimum Wage Act (negative)

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2017Da239311 Decided May 10, 2019【Damages (Etc.)】
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2018Da287362 Decided April 25, 2019【Damages (IPR)】

list