Korean Job Discussion Forums

[jellobean]

A friend of mine got offered a contract with the following clauses:

1. Sixty day notice clause (nothing too strange here).

2. If the employee wishes to terminate the employment contract because of his/her personal reasons before the agreed expiration date, he/she agrees to pay the amount equal to one month salary to the employer for the inconvenience to both the students and the University caused by the employee.

The way this reads, even if the employee were to give sixty days notice, there would be a penalty of one month's salary.

Makes me wonder what is so bad that they need this clause.

I've seen after school programs that require reimbursing students if you quit mid-term and I might understand a clause that doesn't let you leave a uni in the middle of a semester, but this seems very excessive. The way it reads, if an instructors mother was found to be terminally ill, they couldn't even leave without penalty.

In my opinion, all it really does is set up a runner and let prospective instructors know ahead of time that they won't get a letter of release.

The only reason this is a concern is that there are a few other vague clauses that could be interpreted to the instructors disadvantage. There are usually some vague clauses in uni contracts, but if you don't like the way they are interpreted you can usually leave without to much difficulty after the first semester.

Would any of you be willing to sign with this clause?

Any advise on how to figure out why the clause exists?

[buster brown]

There was a similar penalty clause in my first university Language Institute contract. Before signing for the second year, I showed them that it was ILLEGAL according to Labor Law. The upper managers tried to ignore the issue, but eventually the coordinator removed it and I signed for a second year. I found out that it was in the contract because a few years ago a teacher quit mid-contract to go home and get married.

Your friend can sign the contract with the clause, because it's unenforceable. However, it would be easier to show the school what Korean Labor Law says about illegal penalty clauses, and get them to remove it. If they refuse, it's probably a sign that they aren't going to be flexible about other things in the future.

My first contract also had a clause on severance pay that defined it as "equal to one month's regular salary." After finding out that it should be equal to one month's average pay, the school had to pay me an additional 700,000 won based on the heavy overtime I did near the end of the contract. Even though it was a national university, no one knew anything about what should be in a contract. They tried to get several teachers to sign contracts without a clause offering housing (even though they were offering housing). The coordinator told me "We're a national university, we're not going to break our promise to you." That wasn't enough for me to sign without the clause, though.

[marlow]

[jellobean]

Thanks for the tips.

Does anyone have a quote for the labor law that my friend could show them?

Also, props for the tip about average salary on the pension.

[ttompatz]

[jellobean]

Thanks. That takes care of one clause.

This one doesn't seem as bad, but I'm wondering about possible purpose and ability to enforce.

"Employee agrees to discontinue residence in Korea under the visa status sponsored by Employer within five days of termination of employment."

Now, if my friend wanted to get one of those 29 day non-working extensions at the end of the contract, would this prohibit it?

Also, would this come into play if there was a labor problem and my friend needed to stay to work it out?

I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of this clause. Immigration law takes care of these things so why does there need to be a clause about leaving Korea?

Any thoughts? Thanks.

[Ut videam]

[jellobean]

Thanks again. It sounds like that clause wouldn't be anything to worry about.