Constitutional Court Rules Lack of Work Experience Regulations for Juvenile Detention Center School Teachers Unconstitutional...Violation of Property and Equality Rights

No Regulations Established Since the 2004 Amendment

Constitutional Court, Jongno-gu, Seoul. Yonhap News Agency

The Constitutional Court of Korea has ruled that the lack of detailed regulations recognizing the work experience of general administrative staff teachers working at juvenile detention center schools, thereby resulting in inferior treatment compared to other teachers, is unconstitutional.

At 2 p.m. on July 23, the Constitutional Court, in a grand chamber session in Jongno-gu, Seoul, decided by a 6-3 majority that the administrative inaction of the President—failing to enact a Presidential Decree concerning the work experience of teachers at juvenile detention center schools, as delegated by Article 30, Paragraph 2 of the Juvenile Reform Act—was unconstitutional.

Under the current Juvenile Reform Act, matters necessary for the work experience, training, and duties of teachers appointed as general administrative staff at juvenile detention center schools must be specified by Presidential Decree. It explicitly stipulates that these teachers must receive treatment equal to that of education officials appointed under the Framework Act on Education and the Act on Education Officials. However, while the government has provided regulations on training and the performance of duties in the enforcement decree of the Juvenile Reform Act, it has not addressed the recognition of work experience—a key factor in salary step calculation—since the act was amended in 2004.

The Constitutional Court stated, "This statutory provision grants teachers at juvenile detention center schools the right to receive compensation at the same level as education officials, based on an equivalent evaluation of work experience. Failing to promulgate the necessary Presidential Decree without justifiable grounds has resulted in the petitioners’ work experience not being properly reflected when setting their salary steps, which constitutes not merely a loss of expected benefit, but an actual violation of their constitutional property rights."

The Court further noted that allowing differential treatment of individuals whom the law explicitly requires to be treated equally constitutes a violation of the right to equality. While the government argued that, due to the particular nature of juvenile detention centers, the teachers' work might differ from that of regular teachers, the Constitutional Court found that this did not justify the administrative inaction, as the primary duty of juvenile detention center school teachers is to provide primary and secondary education.

In contrast, Justices Jung Hyung-sik, Kim Bok-hyung, and Cho Han-chang issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that the complaint should be dismissed. They pointed out that compensation regulations for public officials already exist for these teachers, and thus, the matter constitutes a case of incomplete legislation, not the complete absence of a relevant regulation—a "non-genuine legislative inaction," rather than "genuine legislative inaction."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.