IKEA Parental Leave Controversy—What's at the Core of the Labor Ministry's Judgment?... "Job Duties" over "Reorganization"

Labor-specialist attorney: "The standard for reinstatement is not wages but duties, authority, and responsibility"
"If an actual reorganization is proven, the company's HR action may be recognized as legitimate"

As global furniture brand IKEA Korea is under investigation by the Ministry of Employment and Labor over allegations that it took disadvantageous personnel action against an employee who returned from parental leave, an analysis has emerged that the key legal issue is not simply wages or rank, but whether it guaranteed "duties at the same level as before the leave."

Labor-specialist attorneys explained that even if the company argues the legitimacy of its personnel action on grounds of a reorganization, the burden of proving this through objective materials lies with the employer. However, there is also an argument that if it is proven that the same standard was applied according to an actual reorganization and that the personnel action was unrelated to parental leave, the company's action may be recognized as lawful.

■ "The standard for reinstatement is duties, not salary... the Supreme Court also emphasizes authority and responsibility"

According to the relevant industry on the 15th, IKEA Korea is under investigation by the Ministry of Employment and Labor over allegations that it took disadvantageous personnel action against an employee who returned from parental leave.

The employee claims to have suffered disadvantages such as being notified of a shift from an executive-level role to a rank-and-file-level role immediately after returning from parental leave, and being offered a recommended resignation and even a field-position assignment. The company, on the other hand, takes the position that the personnel action was a measure resulting from a reorganization, not targeting a specific individual, and was carried out in accordance with relevant statutes and internal policy.

Article 19, Paragraph 4 of the Equal Employment Act stipulates that, after parental leave ends, the employer must reinstate the worker to the same duties as before the leave or to duties paying the same level of wages. However, the Supreme Court interprets "duties at the same level" not simply as a position with the same wages, but as duties substantially similar in work content, authority, and responsibility.

Attorney Han Yong-hyun, representative attorney of Hangyedan Law Office, explained, "The Supreme Court comprehensively considers the nature, content, and scope of the work, and the authority and responsibility, to judge whether it is duties at the same level according to social convention," adding, "Even if there was a reorganization, whether the work is substantially equivalent to the previous duties is the most important criterion for judgment."

He continued, "If an executive-level position holder is assigned rank-and-file-level work, or if the salary and rank were maintained but the scope of work, decision-making authority, and reporting line were greatly reduced, it may be difficult to recognize it as duties at the same level," adding, "If the company fails to prove a legitimate reason unrelated to parental leave, illegality is likely to be recognized."

Attorney Jung Sang-hyuk of the law firm Daeryun also emphasized, "The principle of reinstatement under the Equal Employment Act does not stop at simply paying the same salary; the actual work performed, authority, and responsibility must be at the same level as before the leave according to social convention," adding, "In cases where an office worker is assigned to a field position, or given duties greatly different in character from the previous work, there is room to judge it as a work-related disadvantage."

■ "Reorganization alone does not establish legitimacy... the burden of proof is on the company"

Another issue in this case is to what extent the "reorganization" reason the company puts forward can be legally recognized.

Attorney Han said, "A reorganization itself falls within a company's managerial judgment, but that alone does not justify all personnel actions," adding, "One must comprehensively examine whether the reorganization was actually applied to all employees by the same standard, and whether disadvantageous results occurred only for the person returning from parental leave."

He continued, "In such disputes under the Equal Employment Act, the employer must prove the legitimacy of the personnel action," explaining, "The company must explain with objective materials how other employees whose positions were eliminated were reassigned, and whether it sufficiently reviewed substitutable duties."

However, Attorney Jung took the view that when an actual reorganization is objectively recognized, the company's personnel action is not necessarily deemed illegal.

Attorney Jung said, "If it is proven that there was actually a reorganization and that the same standard was applied regardless of whether one took parental leave, it may be difficult to view it as disadvantageous treatment on grounds of parental leave," while adding, "Ultimately, it will be judged comprehensively based on the nature and authority of the work, the difference from the previous duties, and whether the company made sufficient efforts to assign equal or similar duties."

Attorney Han predicted that the Labor Ministry would comprehensively review documents related to the reorganization, materials on the personnel placement of other employees, whether a recommended resignation was offered, and the work-reporting line. In particular, he explained that if the CEO's remark—alleged by the employee—to the effect of "Do you think you can just rest comfortably and then do the work?" is true, it could serve as circumstantial evidence showing whether parental leave itself influenced the personnel decision.

Meanwhile, IKEA Korea said, "We are faithfully cooperating with the relevant authorities' investigation, and all personnel and organizational operations were carried out in accordance with relevant statutes and internal policy."

Reporter Namgung Young-jin, Money Today Broadcasting MTN

[View Full Article]
IKEA Parental Leave Controversy—What's at the Core of the Labor Ministry's Judgment?... "Job Duties" over "Reorganization" (Go to link)