Wage Discrimination Lawsuit Filed by Part-Time Teachers Against Seoul Metropolitan Government and Gyeonggi-do

A lawsuit filed by 25 part-time teachers against the Seoul Metropolitan Government and Gyeonggi-do, claiming that wage discrimination against regular teachers is unfair, seeks a judgment from the Supreme Court. The KTU held a press conference on the 8th, and on the 26th of last month, the appellate court overturned the original judgment and strongly criticized the ruling that it was not illegal even though the treatment of fixed-term and regular teachers was different, and submitted an appeal. Regular teachers receive an annual salary increase and regular attendance allowances in January and July of each year according to the number of years of service. However, fixed-term teachers are excluded from the target of regular salary increase, and their work experience is not recognized. In the same way, fixed-term teachers are discriminated against in the calculation of performance bonuses, welfare, and severance pay. In May of last year, the court of the first trial found this treatment unfair, but the court of the second trial judged that it was not illegal to treat differently because there were differences in the appointment method and period, authority and responsibility, etc. However, the second trial court also unusually pointed out the “need for further discussion” in detail, saying, “We have different opinions about whether it is desirable to have such a difference in treatment.” It is suggested that fixed-term teachers are an exceptional system to replace temporary vacancies of regular teachers, but discussion is necessary because the reality is that they are not operated to that purpose. In particular, as of 2020, the ratio of homeroom teachers among elementary, middle and high school teachers nationwide was 52%, and he said that the treatment of fixed-term teachers should be carefully examined. Even if it is not the court’s proposal, the education authorities should not neglect this reality any longer. It is not just a matter of arguing over whether to treat fixed-term teachers the same as regular teachers. In 2010, only 6% of elementary, middle, and high school teachers nationwide, the proportion of fixed-term teachers reached 14% in 2022. In the name of preparing for a decrease in the school-age population, schools are increasingly filling the vacancy with fixed-term teachers when regular teachers retire, and this is the result of only aiming for immediate budget savings. It is also common for fixed-term teachers to take on tasks that regular teachers avoid. Although fixed-term teachers cannot be appointed to ‘heavy supervisory positions’, they are not only homeroom teachers, but they are also assigned the position of manager who handles school violence cases. In this way, fixed-term teachers are operated in a completely different way from the original purpose of the school site. Will students see and learn about ‘unfair treatment’ from the classroom? The education authorities should properly check the educational demand and supply and demand of teachers at school sites and correct the indiscriminate hiring of fixed-term contracts.