Heatstroke death during two-person parcel deliveries covered by industrial accident protection, court rules

A parcel worker did not need to have his name on a delivery contract to receive industrial accident protection, a Seoul court has ruled. The worker died of heatstroke while delivering packages as part of a two-person team.

“

The person who signed the transport contract with the outlet was B, but B was expected from the time the contract was signed to perform parcel work with A as a two-person team, and the outlet treated A as an equal party to the transport contract while aware of that arrangement.

The Seoul Administrative Court’s Third Division sided with his parents in a lawsuit against the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service. The agency had refused to pay survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses, arguing that the worker was neither an employee under the Labor Standards Act nor a labor provider covered by industrial accident insurance.

The court found that he qualified as a parcel-service worker under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. His friend, who had signed the transport agreement with the delivery outlet, had been expected from the outset to work with him as a two-person team. The outlet knew this arrangement and treated the two men as equal parties to the delivery contract, the court said.

“

Although A was not listed as a party to the transport contract, A qualifies as a parcel-service worker under the Framework Act on Development of Logistics Services in Living Areas.

The worker received the same training before beginning deliveries and handled unloading, which the court described as a core part of the cargo-delivery process. Those facts supported the conclusion that he was performing parcel-service work, even though the contract did not list him by name.

“

The industrial accident insurance provisions on labor providers are intended to protect people who perform work in nonstandard ways, even if they do not qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act.

The court also rejected the agency’s argument that the worker was not covered because he lacked a permit to operate a freight-transport business. It said the industrial accident insurance rules aim to protect people who provide labor in nonstandard ways and may fall outside the legal definition of an employee. Whether someone holds a freight-business permit cannot serve as the decisive test for that protection, the court said.

“

Whether a person holds a permit to operate a freight-transport business cannot be regarded as the essential criterion for determining whether protection is needed under these provisions.