[2] Whether a collective agreement concluded at the end of an industrial action constitutes an unfair legal act solely on the ground that the content of the collective agreement was somewhat unreasonable in light of the management status of the employer (negative)

[2] In light of the fact that an industrial action by a trade union under Articles 3 and 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is protected within the scope that its legitimacy is recognized as an exercise of the right to collective action by workers guaranteed by the Constitution, even if the collective agreement was concluded at the end of the industrial action by the trade union and its contents are somewhat unreasonable in light of the management status of the employer, such circumstance alone shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair legal act conducted in the

1. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant is a cooperation firm that supplies physical parts, etc. to Hyundai Automobile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “former Car”), and the Defendant demanded wage increase of KRW 125,445 per month, which is the standard amount determined by the National Metal Trade Union in the course of negotiations for wage organizations in 2004, and operated a strike with the labor union on September 10, 204. The Defendant increased the basic salary level of KRW 65,00 per month (or KRW 271 per month) to the Defendant on the premise that the agreement would be null and void in light of the aforementioned circumstances, and the Defendant would have to make best efforts to ensure that it would not have reached an agreement on the supply of new parts to the employees of Hyundai Automobile Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “former Car”) at the time of closure of the business, and the Defendant would have been remarkably unable to reach an agreement on the said new part at the time of closure of the business, and thus, determined that the agreement would have been null and void.

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Under the principle of collective agreement autonomy, a trade union may enter into a collective agreement with an employer to change terms and conditions of employment in favor of the employer as well as a collective agreement to change terms and conditions of employment so that such agreement cannot be deemed null and void unless there are special circumstances, such as the case where a collective agreement to change terms and conditions of employment may be deemed to be so unreasonable that it goes beyond the purpose of a trade union. A trade union need not obtain individual consent or authorization from an employee for such agreement. Whether a collective agreement has been considerably rational or unreasonable shall be determined in light of the contents of the collective agreement, the process of its conclusion, and the management status of the employer at the time of the agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da67536, Sept. 29, 200). However, the above legal principle is not applicable to determining whether a collective agreement to change terms and conditions of employment in favor of the employer is null and void in light of the purpose of the trade union to maintain and improve working conditions and to improve workers’ economic and social status. In so doing, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment below.

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that an industrial action by a trade union under Articles 3 and 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is protected within the scope that its legitimacy is recognized as an exercise of the right to collective action by workers guaranteed by the Constitution, even if the collective agreement was concluded at the end of the industrial action by the trade union and its contents are somewhat unreasonable in light of the employer’s management status, such circumstance alone does not constitute an unfair legal act conducted in an imminent state

Examining the record in light of the above legal principles, a strike conducted by a trade union for the negotiation of wages in 2004 is a legitimate industrial action. Even if the agreement of this case, which is part of the collective agreement concluded between the defendant and the trade union at the end of the strike, is somewhat unreasonable in light of the management status at the time of the defendant, such circumstance alone does not constitute an unfair legal act conducted in the absence of the agreement of this case. In addition, in light of the records, the trade union did not agree on the wage of KRW 125,445 per month, which is below the wage of KRW 65,00 per month, which is below the wage of the Korean Metal trade union, but rather did not make management difficult due to the failure of the defendant to receive a new item from modern automobiles, the employment relationship of workers is unstable, and thus, it constitutes a collective agreement with the defendant as to the contents of the agreement of this case including the original wage. In light of these circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the unfair legal act in violation of the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In addition, in light of the records, the trade union and the defendant agreed to jointly endeavor by the labor and management for the sake of guaranteeing the employment at the time of the agreement in this case, and the trade union did not notify the trade union that the defendant left the bidding and failed to get a new item, and the trade union requested the defendant to conduct new collective bargaining since November 2004 on the issue of double development of modern automobiles, the continuous refusal of employment, and the company's measures therefor, etc. as the subject of the agreement, and it can be known that the labor union and the defendant resolved the strike through pro-con voting for industrial action around January 20, 205, but it cannot be viewed that the employees belonging to the defendant could not assert the validity of the agreement in this case against the defendant. Thus, the court below's decision otherwise determined otherwise cannot be maintained.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)