| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
quercus
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:30 pm Post subject: partial severance- employed several years, but leaving early |
 |
|
hi,
my wife is wondering if severance is cumulative/pro-rated after the first year. she has worked for the same employer for 3 years. this year she will end her contract early (they know, its touchy, but going...we had a baby so time to visit families).
what she is wondering is do they have to pay her partial severance for a partial year if she has worked several years?? so if she has worked 3.4 years and they have paid her severence the first 3 years do they owe her 0.4 years worth of severance when she leaves? if she is ending before her contract is up?
thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If she's cashed it out each year, the employer is not obligated to pay for a part-year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OculisOrbis
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
short answer: no, she wont get partial severance
if she took her severance each year, they dont have to prorate for her last partial year. severance is paid for complete years only and then it resets when paid. if she never took or even if she didnt take severance after last year, then she would be entitled to full severance for the completed years and prorated for the partial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yoja
Joined: 30 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a disclaimer, I don't know for sure and apart from calling up the foreigner helpline or the labor board, I don't know how or where to find an accurate answer.
That being said, I have HEARD that IF you don't collect it each year, if you instead take it all as a lump sum at the end of your employment, then you get the additional prorated portion for the extra months you have worked. If you collect the payment each year, then you are not entitled to the extra months' portion unless it is specified in your contract.
But that's all hearsay, so again, it might be true or it might not be. Please post what happens to you, though, because I'll be in the same boat in a few short months and I've been wondering this as well.
Edit: yeah, what they ^ said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yoja wrote: |
As a disclaimer, I don't know for sure and apart from calling up the foreigner helpline or the labor board, I don't know how or where to find an accurate answer.
That being said, I have HEARD that IF you don't collect it each year, if you instead take it all as a lump sum at the end of your employment, then you get the additional prorated portion for the extra months you have worked. If you collect the payment each year, then you are not entitled to the extra months' portion unless it is specified in your contract.
But that's all hearsay, so again, it might be true or it might not be. Please post what happens to you, though, because I'll be in the same boat in a few short months and I've been wondering this as well.
Edit: yeah, what they ^ said. |
You could always read the relevant act under the labor code and know for sure. Look for the "Employee Retirement Benefit Security Act"
http://www.moel.go.kr/english/topic/laborlaw.jsp?tab=Standards
If it is any consolation, I can find NO article in the act to allow for pro-rated severance but that does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Articles 8 and 9 are the relevant ones here.
Article 8 (Establishment of Retirement Pay System)
(1) An employer who intends to set up a retirement pay
system shall set up the system that makes it possible to pay
workers who retire 30 days or more of average wages for each
year of their consecutive service as retirement pay.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), an
employer may, in case a worker demands, pay the worker the
amount of retirement pay corresponding to his/her consecutive
service period earlier than his/her retirement. In this case, the
consecutive service period to be used for the calculation of the
amount of retirement pay accumulated thereafter shall be
reckoned anew from the time when the balances were settled.
Article 9 (Payment of Retirement Pay)
If a worker retires, the employer shall pay retirement pay to
the worker within 14 days from the date on which there occurs
a cause for the payment : Provided that in special circumstances,
the date of payment may be put off under the agreement
between the parties concerned
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OculisOrbis
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonpurdy
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Location: Ulsan
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yep, if she didn't collect before then she gets partial severance. If she did collect each year then she doesn't get it.
I tried to get my school to NOT pay mine last year because I knew I'd have to leave a month early but they insisted on paying it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Njord
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jonpurdy wrote: |
Yep, if she didn't collect before then she gets partial severance. If she did collect each year then she doesn't get it.
I tried to get my school to NOT pay mine last year because I knew I'd have to leave a month early but they insisted on paying it. |
I didn't think an employer could do this. The act quoted above says "in the case a worker demands" which seems to imply that it is the worker's decision. Also, in order to get my severance paid before leaving my employer, I had to fill out a form requesting it. My understanding is that the default is for the employer to pay all of the severance when you leave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I am aware of it there but I have NOT been able to find the law (act and article) that actually allows/requires it.
Hard to fight a case at the labor board based on a FAQ and not the actual legislation or decree (even though it appears to not be relevant in this case anyway due to early withdrawal of the previous funds).
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
