— Overview
This essay looks at clauses, agreed between a firm and a union, under which a child or a spouse may be hired, or given added points in hiring, when a worker is harmed or dies in an industrial accident. Large production unions often have such clauses; some also give points when the child of a long-serving or retiring worker is hired. The writer sets the case in a labor market that, in a 2019 account by Jung Jo-won for the Korea Economic Research Institute, ranked twenty-seventh among thirty-six OECD members, while national competitiveness ranked tenth, a gap the writer ties to low flexibility.
Those ranks stay with that 2019 account; this page does not add a Current employment law, the essay says, citing the Employment Policy Framework Act as published by the National Law Information Center in 1993, forbids discrimination in hiring by sex, faith, region of origin, pregnancy and childbirth, or status in the family, so priority clauses can sit uneasily with equal opportunity for other applicants. A Kia Motors collective agreement is quoted: article 105 eases the livelihood of a family after an occupational accident, and is read as compensation; article 38 gives priority to a retiree’s child, read as thanks for long service; article 19 gives a worker’s child a prior right, which the writer finds harder to defend.
The case that reached the Court began with a production worker who had been at Kia, then moved to Hyundai. At the former workplace the worker had been exposed to benzene, a carcinogenic toxin from petrochemicals. In an article of 16 November 2020, Im Ik-taek, in the Hankyoreh, put the number of carcinogenic and toxic substances used in domestic auto plants at 9,044. The worker was later diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia, and the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service judged the illness work-related.
The union clause said that when a member died of an occupational disaster, one direct family member without a disqualifying reason would be specially hired within six months. The family asked the firm to honor that contract. The first and second instances held the clause void, as a restraint on fair hiring and as contrary to article 103 of the Civil Code, on good morals and social order. On 27 August 2020, in an en banc sitting, the Supreme Court overturned those judgments and held the special hiring of industrial-accident bereaved families valid.
The Court’s reasons, as the essay sets them out, were that the clause was compensation for an occupational death, agreed by both sides; that a contract so agreed has force unless it was clearly coerced; that the phrase “unless there is a disqualifying reason” leaves the firm some room; and that the hiring was special, not an open contest that took a public place from other applicants. The controversy, the essay says, had widened in 2013, when a bereaved family at Hyundai Motor sued, claiming a duty to employ the family.
At the time of writing, the essay says, no clear legal guideline had yet settled the matter; this page does not invent a Critics, including the lower courts in this case, treated the clause as a trade of a death for a job, and noted that a family member with a physical disqualification would still be excluded. Industrial-accident rates, in statistics from the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency and the Ministry of Employment and Labor as the essay then stated them, had been falling since 2011, though still high beside other advanced countries;
— Contents and key concepts
A clause, and a judgment on 27 August 2020
The essay looks at clauses, agreed by firm and union, under which a child or a spouse may be hired, or given added points, when a worker is harmed or dies in an industrial accident. Employment law, citing the Employment Policy Framework Act as published in 1993, forbids discrimination in hiring by sex, faith, region, pregnancy, or family status. A Kia agreement’s article 105 eases a family’s livelihood after an occupational accident; articles 38 and 19 give priority to a retiree’s or a worker’s child.
A production worker who had been at Kia, then at Hyundai, had been exposed to benzene at the former plant, and was later found to have acute myeloid leukemia, judged work-related. The union clause called for one direct family member, without a disqualifying reason, to be specially hired within six months. The lower courts held the clause void under Civil Code article 103. On 27 August 2020, the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, held it valid, as compensation agreed by both sides, and as a special hiring, not an open contest.
A dispute that widened in 2013, left in its time
The controversy, the essay says, had widened in 2013, when a bereaved family at Hyundai sued, claiming a duty to employ the family. At the time of writing, it says, no clear legal guideline had yet settled the matter; this page does not invent a Critics treated the clause as a trade of a death for a job.
In a 2019 account, Korea’s labor market ranked twenty-seventh among thirty-six OECD members; those ranks stay with that year. Industrial-accident rates, as the essay then stated official statistics, had been falling since 2011, though still high beside other advanced countries. A Hankyoreh article of 16 November 2020 put carcinogenic and toxic substances in domestic auto plants at 9,044. The same Korean report, at fuller length, is on CampusDown.
Sources
- Special-hiring clauses for industrial-accident families: child or spouse hired or given points, by firm-union agreement. Large production unions often have them; some also points for a long-serving or retiring worker’s child. Jung Jo-won, 2019, Korea Economic Research Institute: labor market 27th among 36 OECD members, national competitiveness 10th, tied by the writer to low flexibility — ranks left with that 2019 account; Employment Policy Framework Act, National Law Information Center, 1993: no discrimination in hiring by sex, faith, region, pregnancy and childbirth, or family status. Kia collective agreement: art. 105, livelihood after an occupational accident, read as compensation; art. 38, priority for a retiree’s child, as thanks; art. 19, a worker’s child’s prior right, harder to defend. Case: production worker at Kia, then Hyundai; benzene exposure at former Kia; acute myeloid leukemia; KCOMWEL judged work-related. Union clause: on an occupational death, one direct family member without a disqualifying reason specially hired within six months. First and second instances: clause void, restraint on fair hiring, contrary to Civil Code art. 103 (good morals and social order). Supreme Court en banc, 27 August 2020 (the material also points to a 3 September 2020 video of the sitting): held valid. Reasons as the essay sets them: compensation for an occupational death, agreed by both sides; a contract so agreed has force unless clearly coerced; “unless there is a disqualifying reason” leaves the firm room; special hiring, not an open contest taking a public place. Controversy widened in 2013, Hyundai bereaved family sued claiming a duty to employ the family. At the time of writing, the essay says, no clear legal guideline had settled the matter — Critics, including the lower courts: a trade of a death for a job; a physically disqualified family member still excluded. Kwak Yong-hui, 2016, Labor Law, cited on heavy-industry agreements. Son Mi-jeong, 2016, Korean Law Association vol. 64, on the force of priority and special-hiring clauses. Im Ik-taek, Hankyoreh, 16 November 2020: 9,044 carcinogenic and toxic substances in domestic auto plants. KOSHA and MOEL industrial-accident statistics, as the essay then stated them: rates falling since 2011, still high beside other advanced countries; Death rate per 10,000 workers is defined; no figure is given in the extract, and none is invented.
Last updated: 14 November 2026
Frequently asked questions
What did the Supreme Court hold on 27 August 2020?
In an en banc sitting that day, it overturned the first and second instances and held valid a clause for the special hiring of industrial-accident bereaved families.
When did the wider dispute begin, in this essay?
In 2013, when a bereaved family at Hyundai Motor sued, claiming a duty to employ the family.
Which dated figures does the essay use besides the judgment?
A 2019 ranking among thirty-six OECD members, left with that account, and a Hankyoreh figure of 16 November 2020, 9,044 carcinogenic and toxic substances in domestic auto plants.
Refund policy
- Change of mind / refund requested after partial use / more than 7 days after purchase
◆ Exceptions
- File errors / cannot download or open the file
◆ How to request a refund: send a 1:1 inquiry via Customer Service at the top