1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The issue of whether a violation of the procedures for dismissal prescribed in a collective agreement is null and void shall not be uniformly determined, and shall be determined in accordance with the purport of the relevant provision. If disciplinary action is taken in violation of the disciplinary procedure even though the collective agreement permits a worker to participate in the organization of the disciplinary committee, the exercise of the right to disciplinary action shall be deemed null and void regardless of whether the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized. However, even though the worker provided the worker with an opportunity to exercise the right to select a disciplinary commissioner, if the worker voluntarily denies or refuses to select a disciplinary commissioner, it shall not be deemed null and void even if the disciplinary action was taken by the disciplinary committee which did not participate in the disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du4672 delivered on March 26, 199, etc.).

Meanwhile, in a collective agreement concluded between a company-level trade union and an employer, where the disciplinary committee is determined to be composed of three members of each company-level trade union, and there is no provision regarding the qualifications of workers disciplinary committee, the disciplinary committee of the worker-level trade union shall be construed to be limited to the workers belonging to the employer company. Furthermore, even if a company-level trade union established a collective agreement and then changes into a branch or chapter of an industrial unit trade union and then the industrial unit trade union succeeds to the rights and duties under the collective agreement, if a new collective agreement was not concluded after the change of the organization of the trade union, the employees’ disciplinary proceedings shall be subject to the collective agreement concluded at the time of the company-level trade union being the company-level trade union. Therefore,

In full view of the circumstances in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) did not err in rejecting Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who belongs to the NA-nam Branch of the Korea Metal Trade Union, as an employee disciplinary committee for workers, and that the instant trade union did not voluntarily waive or refuse the appointment of a disciplinary committee member, and that there was no violation of Article 22(1) of the collective agreement regarding the composition of the disciplinary committee for the instant disciplinary action.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the composition of disciplinary committee.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court determined that the instant disciplinary action did not constitute a violation of Article 120 of the collective agreement, since it is difficult to view that the instant disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs may not be substantially guaranteed the right to collective action of the instant trade union, even if there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs participated in the industrial action at the time of the opening of the instant initial trial disciplinary committee and the Review disciplinary committee, and even if there was a sporadicism

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the prohibition of disciplinary action during the period of dispute under the collective agreement, or misconception of facts due to

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

Considering the circumstances in its holding, the lower court determined that the instant disciplinary action cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the notice was not made more than seven days prior to the holding of the instant Review Disciplinary Committee, even if the notice was not made seven days prior to the holding of the instant Review Disciplinary Committee, and that the notice was not sufficient for the Plaintiffs to prepare for the vindication, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant disciplinary action cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the period for notifying reexamination was not complied with. In addition, in light of the circumstances in its holding, the lower court determined that,

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to notification defects in holding the Review Disciplinary Committee, the granting of the opportunity for vindication, or the misconception of facts due to the violation of

4. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

The court below acknowledged the following facts based on its adopted evidence: (a) the intervenor did not immediately convene the disciplinary committee because the plaintiffs asserted that the disciplinary action could not be taken on the ground that the dispute was during the dispute period since September 2007 when the plaintiffs reported the dispute continuously; (b) the grounds for the disciplinary action of the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 4, the grounds for the disciplinary action of the plaintiff 7 ①, and (c) the grounds for the disciplinary action of the plaintiff 7 notified the plaintiff that the disciplinary action would be suspended pursuant to the collective agreement of this case only within 3 months from the date the grounds for the disciplinary action occurred; and (b) the above grounds for the disciplinary action fall under the "case of the disciplinary action" under the proviso of Article 23(10) of the collective agreement of this case, and therefore, (c) the court below determined that the prescription period for the disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have lapsed since the plaintiff 4 and the plaintiff 5 were prosecuted on the grounds that the disciplinary action could not be taken on the ground that the disciplinary action was during the dispute period.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the completion of the statute of limitations, violation of precedents, and misconception of facts due to

5. Regarding ground of appeal No. 5

The lower court determined that it was justifiable to recognize the facts of each of the grounds for disciplinary actions against which the Plaintiffs asserted as the grounds for appeal, as evidence, and to use each of the grounds for the disciplinary actions.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the existence and legitimacy of individual grounds for disciplinary action or misunderstanding of facts

6. Regarding ground of appeal No. 6

Considering the circumstances in its holding, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that each disciplinary measure against the Plaintiffs was in deviation from or abused the scope of the disciplinary discretion, as it considerably loses validity by social norms.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to disciplinary action, misunderstanding of facts against the rules of experience.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the part resulting from participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)