On November 10, last year, members of Rider Union and members of the Cargo Coalition of the Public Transport Workers’ Union held a rally to urge the introduction of a delivery-delivery fare system that guarantees adequate income and the enactment of a rider protection law near the Cheongwadae Sarangchae in Seoul. Reporter Lee Joon-heon
The court of first instance ruled that having delivery workers pay industrial accident insurance premiums unlike ordinary workers was not unfair discrimination.
According to the court on the 11th, the 14th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Judge Lee Sang-hoon) lost a judgment in May in a lawsuit filed by three people including a delivery worker Mr. .
In principle, the Industrial Accident Insurance Act applies to workers under the Labor Standards Act. As the number of workers who are not workers according to the Labor Standards Act, but who work in a similar way is gradually increasing, they are classified as workers in a special form and there are separate rules for application.
However, in the case of workers with special types of workers, the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Premium Collection Act requires employers to pay one-half each. It is different from ordinary workers, where the employer pays 100%. Delivery worker Mr. A, who worked for a delivery agency, said that this regulation was unfair discrimination, and requested the court to cancel the disposition of insurance premiums and applied to the court to recommend a trial on the constitutionality of this regulation.
However, the court rejected the claim of Mr. A and others, saying, “It is difficult to believe that the plaintiffs’ right to equality is infringed by this provision.”
The court said, “The right to receive workers’ compensation insurance is recognized as the right to form legislation to determine the content and scope of the state in consideration of the social security and economic level, and it cannot be seen that the constitution specifically requires equality in the burden of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. While acknowledging the need to protect workers, the method and degree of protection are different.”
The court continued, “Special type workers own equipment, raw materials, and work tools, or bear the risk of generating profits and incurring losses themselves, so they are more similar to employers than workers.” It is difficult to see it as discrimination without rational basis.”
The court added, “It seems reasonable and reasonable to resolve the irrationality claimed by the plaintiffs through step-by-step legislation.” Person A and others appealed against the judgment of the first instance.
>Please activate JavaScript for write a comment in LiveRe.