[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 et al.

Attorney Cho Jae-ju

Law Firm Bernero, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Relations between the Parties

1) The defendant is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and supplying motor vehicles and non-motor vehicle electronic parts, control products, systems, etc. * On Aug. 18, 1995 * On Jan. 31, 2002 after its incorporation as a stock company * on Feb. 19, 202 ** on Feb. 19, 2002 * on Feb. 19 * on Feb. 1, 2007 * on Feb. 1, 2007 * on Feb. 15, 200 * on Feb. 15, 2008 * on Feb. 15, 2008 * on a change of each trade name as a stock company * on Dec. 23, 2008 while continuing to exist as a limited company.

2) The National Metal Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the "MMM No") is an industrial trade union of a national scale covering workers engaged in the nationwide metal industry and metal-related industries, and has a "Korean Metal Trade Union A branch within the defendant" (hereinafter referred to as "Article 1 Trade Union A" in comparison with Article 2 of the above sub-branch in comparison with the above sub-paragraph (d) below, a company-level trade union. The plaintiffs were employed by the defendant around 2005 before they were employed by the defendant around 2005 until the dismissal of the plaintiffs **, Kim * by the defendant on September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs are members of the union belonging to Article 1 Trade Union.

3) Meanwhile, on September 12, 2012, Plaintiff H et al. filed a petition with the Labor Relations Commission for adjudication on unfair dismissal and remedy for unfair labor practices against the Defendant’s dismissal on September 12, 2012, and the dismissal was recognized as unfair dismissal at the first instance trial. However, at the review stage, Plaintiff H et al. filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the decision made by the Central Labor Relations Commission as Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap14139, and the Defendant participated in the action to assist the Defendant (Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission) in the instant case.

4) On January 24, 2014, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a decision that dismissal of Plaintiff H, etc. is unfair, and revoked the part concerning unfair dismissal among the reexamination decision made by the National Labor Relations Commission (Provided, That the claim against the part concerning unfair labor practices among the reexamination decision was dismissed on the ground that the Defendant’s intent to engage in unfair labor practices is not recognized). The appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014Nu44191) brought an appeal against Plaintiff H, etc. on both sides of the Defendant (Seoul High Court 2014Nu4191), which maintained the foregoing conclusion and rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is still pending as Supreme Court Decision 2015Du3550.

B. Defendant’s basic salary increase and payment practices of piece rates

1) The Daejeon Chungcheong District Office, including the Defendant, had concluded a wage agreement on the basic wage increase portion in the pertinent year and the performance bonus, etc. based on the first half of the year during the period from August 12, 2005 to September 5, 2011 by regularly negotiating branches each year from August 12, 2005 to September 5, 201. The Defendant, in accordance with the wage agreement concluded as above, has paid to workers the piece of bonuses based on the basic wage increase and the first half of the year’s performance.

2) From January 3, 2006 to February 23, 2012, the Defendant consulted on the 4/4th regular meeting of the labor-management council for the first quarter and the second half of the year with respect to the standards and timing for the payment of piece rates according to the performance of the labor-management council for the first quarter and the second half of the year, and according to the consultation, the Defendant has paid piece rates to workers according to the performance of the second half of the year.

(c) Port of collective bargaining between the defendant and metal labor union in 2012 and the strike under Article 10 of this Act;

1) Meanwhile, the Defendant concluded a collective agreement on a two-year basis with respect to the remaining working conditions, etc. regarding the amount of piece rates based on wage increases and management performance, as well as the amount of piece rates based on the other matters. Around the expiration of the term of validity of the collective agreement concluded on June 30, 2010 between the Defendant and the metal labor union, the metal labor union demanded the Defendant to conduct collective bargaining to conclude wages and collective agreements in 2012 on March 30, 2012.

2) Although the Defendant and metal oars were engaged in collective bargaining over 14 occasions from April 26, 2012 to August 7, 2012, the agreement was not reached.

3) On July 2, 2012, metal labor unions applied for mediation of a labor dispute to the Chungcheong Northern Regional Labor Relations Commission. As a result, the labor dispute mediation was conducted from July 10, 2012 to July 11, 2012, the labor union decided to conduct industrial action with the consent of 81.2%.

4) On July 13, 2012, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission decided that the case does not fall under the subject matter of mediation without undergoing the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows as stipulated in the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Labor Relations Adjustment Act”), and recommended that the application form should be subject to the procedures for simplification of metal oars and bargaining windows to the Defendant.

5) Article 1 of the Trade Union Act started from July 13, 2012 to August 6 of the same year (hereinafter “the instant strike”).

6) On July 24, 2012, Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office urged the Defendant to implement the simplification of bargaining windows.

(d) Establishment of Article 2 of this Act and the proceeding of procedures for simplification of bargaining windows;

1) On July 26, 2012, the Defendant was established as a trade union A, a company-level trade union (hereinafter referred to as "second trade union"), thereby.

2) From July 26, 2012 to four times, the Defendant demanded to submit a request for negotiation in conformity with the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows, such as the number of union members as of the date of a request for bargaining in metal labor unions. Accordingly, metal labor unions notified the fact that the number of union members who were to meet the standards at the time of the first request for bargaining on August 17, 2012 is 351.

3) Article 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act”) demanded the Defendant to conduct collective bargaining on August 13, 2012, and the Defendant publicly announced the fact of requesting bargaining under Article 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Labor Relations Adjustment Act”) and the Enforcement Decree thereof on August 20, 2012. On August 21, 2012, the Defendant determined and publicly announced the trade union requesting bargaining as stated below [Attachment 1].

[Attachment 1: Public Notice of Determination of Trade Union requested by the Defendant for Negotiations]

E. Conclusion of wages and collective agreements with the Defendant following individual negotiations

1) On August 27, 2012, the Defendant received individual negotiations from the labor union Article 2, and consented thereto on the 28th of the same month. Thereafter, the Defendant and the labor union Article 2 conducted individual collective bargaining and derived a provisional agreement around September 7, 2012. The main contents are as follows.

[Attachment 2: Contents of Provisional Agreement between the Defendant and Article 2

A person shall be appointed.

2) On September 11, 2012, the Defendant entered into a labor agreement and a collective agreement (hereinafter referred to as “collective agreement for Article 2 labor union”) with labor and wage agreements (hereinafter referred to as “labor agreement”) with the Defendant on September 2, 2012. The main contents of the labor union wage agreement under Article 2 are as follows (hereinafter referred to as “agreement 500,000 won in total”).

Wage Negotiations Agreement, 2012

3) On September 11, 2012, pursuant to the wage agreement under Article 2 of the Labor Standards Convention, the Defendant paid KRW 5,500,000 to the members of the 2nd union among the technical staff members, for the first half of 2012, the amount of piece rates and the amount of encouragement payments for the first half of 2012.

4) On September 25, 2012, the Defendant paid to 296 employees in all office employees, other than officers, a half-yearly bonus and a half-yearly incentive amounting to 5.5 million won in 2012.

F. Progress of collective bargaining between the Defendant and Article 10

1) From September 27, 2012 to February 6, 2014, the Defendant and the Trade Union continued negotiations to enter into a gold and collective agreement for consecutive years 2012. From September 27, 2012, the Defendant and the Trade Union continued to negotiate with a view to entering into a wage agreement and collective agreement. The difference between the position between the union and the respondent is not narrowed, the union Article 1 entered into a preferential agreement with the union members and the office employees of Article 2 and the labor union members of Article 2 with a preference to enter into a wage agreement in 2012, in which they want to receive the payment of the amount of performance-based incentives, the amount of the unpaid premium and the amount of basic wage paid by the office employees of Article 2 and the labor union members of Article 2. Accordingly, the Defendant took the position that it is not possible to negotiate the wage agreement and collective agreement on the grounds that the provision

2) On February 13, 2014, Article 1 of the Trade Union Act continued negotiations for the conclusion of a collective agreement to the Defendant side, but expressed its intent to waive the negotiations on wage agreements.

(g) The number of union members referred to in Articles 1 and 2;

On August 13, 2012, the number of union members under Article 1 of the Trade Union Act requested the Defendant to conduct collective bargaining, and the number of union members under Article 2 of the Trade Union Act was 351 and 229. However, on September 11, 2012, a collective agreement between the Trade Union and the Defendant concluded between the Trade Union and the Defendant, the number of union members under Article 1 of the Trade Union Act decreased to 46, and the number of union members under Article 2 of the Trade Union Act exceeded 292.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 through 14, 16, 17, and 18 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Wage claims based on general binding force;

A. Party’s assertion

1) Plaintiffs’ assertion

A) Article 35 (General Binding Force) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that when a collective agreement applies to one or more workers of the same kind of job employed at a business or workplace, the said collective agreement shall apply to the other workers of the same kind of job employed at the same business or workplace. Since the date of September 11, 2012 when the Defendant entered into a collective agreement with the labor union and a wage agreement with the labor union, the number of union members under Article 2 is more than half of the same worker employed at the workplace of the Defendant. Accordingly, the wage agreement under Article 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which is a majority of union members, shall also apply to the plaintiffs of the same kind of job employed at a small number of union members under Article 35 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

B) In accordance with the general binding doctrine, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs [Attachment : Table : Details of the Plaintiffs’ calculation of the subscription amount] D, E, F, each of the basic salary increase in 2012 as indicated in paragraph 4, 2012, the upper half-term bonus rate and the amount of non-regulative premium (hereinafter “the claim amount of this case”) and damages for delay.

2) Defendant’s assertion

A) Since the Defendant still participates in negotiations on wages and collective agreements in Articles 1 and 2012, the general binding doctrine does not apply to this case.

B) Even if Article 1 union unilaterally renounced negotiations on the part of the wage agreement in 2012, it is unreasonable to assert that the part of the collective agreement ought to be subject to the wage agreement pursuant to Article 35 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act only with respect to the wage agreement while maintaining the position that the collective agreement shall continue individual negotiations, separate from the collective agreement for trade union Article 2.

B. Relevant legal principles

- A majority of union under the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act which is allowed to establish multiple unions (a project or one project);

trade unions consisting of more than half of the same kind of workers employed at the workplace;

A small number of union members (the number of union members) in accordance with the general binding doctrine of a collective agreement

(1) shall be extended to the members of a union in which the number of members of the same kind of worker is not less than half;

Whether or not there is

1) Permission for multiple unions and the system of simplification of bargaining windows

A) Article 33(1) of the Constitution provides that workers shall have the right to independent collective bargaining, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve working conditions, thereby guaranteeing workers’ right to independent association as well as collective bargaining and collective action. However, since January 1, 2010, the amended Trade Union Act allows the establishment of multiple unions that share the object of organization in a workplace unit from July 1, 201 to July 1, 201, not only the majority union under the current law but also the small number of union unions became the subject of enjoyment of collective bargaining and collective action rights. However, the Trade Union Act allows the establishment of collective bargaining and collective action rights as the subject of enjoyment of collective bargaining and collective action rights in the main sentence of Article 29-2(1) to establish an efficient and stable bargaining system by integrating the bargaining procedures between the multiple trade unions and the employers, and (see the proviso to Article 29-2(1) of the Labor Union Act, if the representative trade union does not have the right to independent bargaining within the prescribed period of 20-2 of the Act.

B) Therefore, in order to determine whether a collective agreement under the current law affects a minority union member in accordance with the general binding doctrine, it should be premised on the situation where the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows do not proceed between multiple union members in the same workplace.

2) The general binding doctrine

A) Article 35 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that a collective agreement shall apply to workers of the same kind who are employed in the same kind of business or workplace in a single business or workplace. This is to expand the normative effect of the collective agreement that is recognized only between the union members of the relevant trade union that concluded the collective agreement with the original employer and to workers of the same kind of workplace who are not union members of the same trade union, thereby maintaining and strengthening the status of the trade union to which many workers join, the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, etc., and to promote the fair and reasonable implementation of working conditions by integrating working conditions for the same kind of work. In the event that there is a gap in collective autonomy between the labor and management, the general binding force of the collective agreement is a supplementary system by the State to supplemently apply the conditions of the collective agreement, which is the product of the collective agreement of the autonomy of the majority of union through legislation, to the outside party of the agreement of the workplace, thereby guaranteeing the labor rights under Article 33(1) of the Constitution

B) As seen earlier, considering the fact that the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act allows individual bargaining under certain requirements (the employer’s consent and the decision of separation of bargaining units) while putting in place multiple labor unions where multiple labor unions exist, expanding the effectiveness of a collective agreement in multiple labor unions through a general binding doctrine in a situation where multiple labor unions meet the above requirements and independently negotiate with an employer, is nothing more than recognizing exceptions to the simplification of bargaining windows (the unification of working conditions through individual bargaining) and other exceptions (the general binding force).

C) From this perspective, under the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, the general binding doctrine should be applied complementaryly only when there exists a vacancy in collective autonomy between labor and management.

3) We examine the above premise.

A) First, in a case where a small number of union members who did not participate in the conclusion of a collective agreement between an employer and a majority union have already concluded a separate collective agreement by exercising their collective bargaining rights independently, it is reasonable to view that the validity of a collective agreement for union members does not belong to the small number of union members or its members by the general binding force as long as the agreement remains valid.

B) In addition, if a small number of union members are undergoing individual negotiations with an employer, even if the collective agreement on the small number of union members has not yet reached the stage of conclusion, it is reasonable to view that the collective agreement on the small number of union members does not extend to the small number of union members for the following reasons.

① General binding force is naturally generated with respect to all normative parts, i.e., the part that sets forth working conditions and other workers’ treatment, regardless of the kind or disadvantage of the provisions of the individual collective agreement, if the requirements under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act are met. However, if the validity of a collective agreement entered into by a small number of union members is to be expanded as a matter of law due to the fact that a collective agreement is not yet concluded in the situation where a small number of union members continues to engage in an individual bargaining, for example, there are normative parts that make it possible for a small number of union members to accept from among the contents of the collective agreement entered into by a large number of union members, and collective bargaining is continued to be conducted in order to narrow different opinions regarding that part during the bargaining period, it would result in determining the working conditions, etc. of the small number of union members

② The individual bargaining period in the minority group may be prolonged due to various factors, and accordingly, there may be a temporary gap in the regulation on working conditions, etc. of union members in the minority group. However, even if the long-term bargaining period in the minority group is attributable to the employer’s intentional and unfaithful bargaining attitude, the employer’s act may be deemed to constitute unfair labor practices, regardless of the existence of room for it to constitute unfair labor practices. However, in the case of ordinary trade pursuing collective autonomy by individual bargaining, separate from the majority of union members, such a temporary vacancy may inevitably occur. Therefore, as a minority group, it is possible to supplement a vacancy ex post by establishing an effective bargaining strategy in consideration of its negotiating power, thereby preventing a fatal conflict in the union itself, or inserting the contents of the collective agreement that the majority union concluded, and thus, it is difficult to supplement the state of temporary binding force through general legal principles.

C. Determination on the instant case

1) The Plaintiffs asserted that Article 1 of the Labor Union Act continues negotiations with the Defendant in order to conclude a collective agreement in 2012 with the Defendant, but that they renounced negotiations, and that they would be subject to the Labor Union Wage Convention in accordance with the general binding force, and that the Defendant and Article 1 of the Labor Union Act concluded a collective agreement with the Defendant respectively through separate procedures.

2) According to the facts acknowledged in sub-paragraph 1-b and (c) above, it is recognized that a collective agreement was concluded between the Defendant and the labor union under which the labor union entered into with respect to the previous basic wage increase, performance-based payment criteria, and timing of performance-based payment, and other basic terms and conditions of employment including the other basic terms and conditions of wages, as a party to collective labor-management relations, and matters related to rights and obligations as a party to collective labor-management relations different time and methods.

3) However, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, only because collective bargaining and the conclusion of collective agreement between the employer and the labor union have been divided into several parts according to their contents, if part of the collective agreement is subject to the application of the general binding power of an organization agreement concluded by another labor union and the continuation of individual bargaining is recognized only for the remaining parts, it is inevitable to cause confusion in collective autonomy between multiple labor unions and the employer.

4) In particular, considering the fact that (i) the previous matters provided by the Defendant’s wage agreement are not unrelated to the standard of wage calculation, standard and amount of allowance payment, bonus payment, etc., which are determined in a collective agreement; (ii) the fact that both Articles 1 and 2 were engaged in negotiations for the conclusion of wages and collective agreements with the Defendant during 2012, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s wage agreement exists as independent from the collective agreement. In determining whether there exists a vacancy in collective autonomy between the Defendant and the first union (i.e., whether the collective agreement between the Defendant and the second union need to intervene supplementaryly to the union members of Article 1 in accordance with the general binding doctrine), it is reasonable to view that the wage agreement and collective agreement as a whole are a single unit.

5) Ultimately, insofar as Article 10 of the Labor Union Act continues to exist without waiver of negotiations to conclude a collective agreement with the Defendant in 2012, it cannot be deemed that the general binding takes effect on the part of the wage agreement, separate from the collective agreement under Article 2 of the Labor Union Act, to the members under Article 1 of the Labor Union Act.

6) The plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Claim for damages caused by tort and unfair labor practice

A. Party’s assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendant does not pay the full amount of the claim amount of this case, including the amount of unpaid incentives, by discriminating against the Plaintiffs who caused the labor union under Article 1 in comparison with the members of the labor union and other employees in the labor union. The Defendant’s aforementioned discrimination acts constitute tort under the Civil Act or unfair labor practices provided for in Article 81 subparag. 1 (Treatment disadvantageously on the ground of joining a specific labor union) and subparag. 4 (Control and Intervention in the Management and Operation of the Trade Union) of the Trade Union Act. The Defendant is obligated to pay the claim amount of this case to the Plaintiffs as compensation for damages arising from tort or unfair labor practices.

2) Defendant’s assertion

In accordance with the proviso of Article 29-2(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, the Defendant entered into an agreement with Article 1 and Article 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act prior to the agreement on wages and collective agreements with Article 1 and Article 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. Accordingly, the Defendant paid the amount of the base salary increase, the upper half-yearly bonus, and the amount of the incentive for the unpaid premium in 2012. On the other hand, the wage and collective agreement with Article 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act are narrow and narrow in the mutual position in the process of negotiations with Article 1, so the Defendant did not pay the claim amount of this case to the Plaintiffs who belong to Article 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. In particular, in the case of the amount of the anti-pro rata encouragement, the first Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment did not meet the requirements for the unpaid rules and collective agreement, and thus does not constitute a

B. Relevant legal principles

- The obligation to maintain the freedom of negotiation and neutrality under the existence of multiple unions;

1) Where multiple labor unions in a single workplace jointly and separately negotiate with each other without undergoing the simplification of bargaining windows, each labor union has a unique right to collective bargaining and sign collective agreements based on the three labor rights guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 29(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act). Therefore, an employer has a duty to faithfully conduct collective bargaining with respect to a certain union, and an employer has a duty to maintain neutrality that equally respect each union’s right to collective bargaining and sign collective agreements while maintaining a neutral attitude toward each union in the course of individual bargaining.

2) However, the employer’s duty of neutrality maintenance does not mean the intention to treat multiple union members absolutely equally. For example, in a case where multiple union members who are in existence have a big difference in their organization or bargaining power, the employer cannot be readily concluded that the employer is in violation of the duty of neutrality maintenance by taking into account the organization size or bargaining power of the other party in the course of individual bargaining with each union and taking a different position jointly. From the perspective of organization size or bargaining power, a small number of union members, relatively small number of union members who are relatively small in the perspective of organization or bargaining power, resulting in the conclusion of a collective agreement with the contents unfavorable to the majority union, and accordingly, even if the organization of a small number of union members, such as large-scale union members, is reduced, it can be deemed as a result of the conclusion of the agreement autonomy in accordance with the decision-making process of the small number union members. If it does not so, the employer’s weak bargaining power is also identical or neutral to the negotiation proposal presented in the process of strong interference with the union.

3) However, there are certain limits on the employer’s freedom of bargaining. In a case where an employer has the intention of fluoring (non-fluoring) or bruence with respect to the relevant union on the ground of the past route, character, inclination, etc. that the employer has maintained a specific union, and it is recognized that he/she has taken an attitude, such as failing to comply with the collective bargaining with the relevant union itself, or making an unreasonable discrimination in the course of collective bargaining - time, place, frequency, number of participants, etc., or presenting a discriminatory bargaining proposal that may result in weakening the organizational ability of the union concerned, this can be assessed as a violation of the duty of neutrality maintenance, as well as may constitute an unfair labor practice or a tort against the union and its members.

C. Determination on the part concerning payment of the encouragement fund

1) Whether the employer’s act of paying the encouragement money under the individual bargaining situation of multiple unions constitutes a violation of the duty of neutrality maintenance

A) The fact that the Defendant did not pay to the union members of the 1st Trade Union that the Defendant paid to the union members of the 2nd Trade Union was as seen earlier. In light of the aforementioned relevant legal principles, it is examined whether the Defendant’s act of paying the amount of encouragement money to the union members of the 1st Trade Union under the circumstances of the 2nd Trade Union negotiations constitutes a violation of the duty of neutrality maintenance, which constitutes a secondary labor act or a tort.

B) Facilitate under the legal system in which only a single union has been permitted in a previous workplace

If collective bargaining is conducted without labor union dispute action and collective agreement is concluded without labor union dispute action, there are few cases where the employer pays bonuses or encouragements with the name of "no dispute", "no dispute", "no dispute between labor and management", and it seems that the issue of legality has been raised with respect to the payment of such nominal amounts.

C) However, in a bilateral relationship between a single union and an employer, it is an essential difference in that an employer pays money as a condition of decentralization in a multilateral relationship between a single union and an employer. (i) In the case of the former, a single union may determine whether an employer would attempt to conclude a collective agreement on more favorable terms by leaving an industrial action, or whether an employer would receive monetary rewards from an employer by leaving an industrial action or by leaving an industrial action, based on free will by comparing and comparing the understanding room. Therefore, the employer’s promise to pay money to the union members under the collective bargaining agreement after concluding the collective bargaining agreement can be deemed as a measure that can be taken as one of the parties to the collective autonomy. On the other hand, in the latter case, if the employer fails to make a decision on whether to receive monetary rewards from an employer on the basis of the collective bargaining agreement, such as the agreement to receive monetary rewards from an employer and another union, it shall be deemed that the employer would have to have no choice but to receive monetary rewards from an employer.

D) Under the circumstances where concluding a collective agreement with each of the more favorable contents by taking part in an industrial action by multiple labor unions, each of the labor unions, even in light of the overall point of view, has determined the possibility that all of the labor unions choose a non-trade dispute, and as a result, it is easy for other labor unions to select a non-trade dispute that appears more safe and more favorable than one of the labor disputes and non-trade disputes.

E) Of course, where multiple labor unions have agreed to give up the mutual decentralization payments and to conduct an industrial action against the employer by setting up against the employer, or where one of the labor unions agrees to enter into an industrial action with a more favorable content through an industrial action, such as where the collective agreement is more important and more significant than the amount of the decentralization payments, and where the success of the industrial action is expected to be considerably high, multiple labor unions may choose an industrial action, notwithstanding the employer’s promise to pay the decentralization payments.

F) However, in ordinary cases, an employer’s promise to pay, or actual payment of, money on condition that an employer would not conduct or does not conduct an industrial action against multiple labor unions may be deemed as an act restricting the right of collective action guaranteed by the Constitution by either party (user) of the collective autonomy from a substantive point of view to the other party’s decision-making and decision.

2) Facts of recognition

A) As to the instant case, the following facts may be acknowledged in addition to the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 19, 28, and 29 and the purport of the entire pleadings in the basic facts acknowledged earlier.

① The specific contents of the wage agreement concluded by the Defendant with respect to the amount of money, such as the first union member, the first union member, the first union member, and the first and second union member bonus, etc. from 2005 to 2011 are as follows, and the detailed contents of the agreement that the Defendant has consulted on the second half of the year are as follows:

[Attachment 3: The amount of money such as basic salary increase and performance bonus from the year 2005 to the year 2011]

[Attachment 4: Performance rates in the second half of the year agreed at between the year 2005 and the year 4/2011 by the labor-management council in the fourth quarter]

A person shall be appointed.

② On March 30, 2012, metal oars demanded the Defendant to conduct collective bargaining in order to conclude wages and collective agreements in 2012, and thereafter, despite the progress of collective intervention over several occasions until the end of June 2012, both sides did not reach an agreement. Accordingly, Article 1 engaged in the instant strike intermittently from July 13, 2012 to August 6, 2012 in accordance with the result of the pro-con voting for the dispute (as 81.2% with respect to the result of the pro-con voting for the dispute).

③ On the other hand, on July 13, 2012, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission recommended the Defendant to undergo a procedure for the simplification of an interference channel between metal oars and the Defendant, and Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office also demanded the Defendant to implement the procedure for the simplification of a negotiation channel on July 24, 2012.

④ On July 26, 2012, during the instant strike period, Article 2 of the Trade Union Act was established, the Defendant demanded at its expense to submit a request for negotiation necessary for the procedures for simplification of the bargaining windows.

⑤ Article 2 Trade Union demanded the Defendant to conduct collective bargaining on August 13, 2012, and the Defendant subsequently determined and publicly announced Articles 1 and 20 as a trade union requesting bargaining on August 21, 2012. Upon Defendant’s consent to the individual demand for bargaining under Article 2 of the Trade Union on August 28, 2012, the Trade Union and Labor Union Article 1 and Article 2 came to conduct individual bargaining with each Defendant without undergoing follow-up procedures for the simplification of the interference windows.

④ The contents of the agreement on September 7, 2012 and the provisional agreement between the Defendant and the second union members of the 2 union include “payment of KRW 5,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for non-conscept 3,000,000 won for non-consciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciscisciss (it is not significant, i.e.).

7) Article 2 of the Labor Relations Adjustment Agreement, which was finally concluded on September 11, 2012, includes the fact that 5,500,000 won was paid for the same as the above provisional agreement. Based on September 10, 2012, 292, the Defendant was a plan to pay 10,000 won to not more than 10 employees who subscribed to Article 2 of the Labor Relations Adjustment Act from September 11, 2012 (the number of employees in this case, who participated in the instant strike as members of the Labor Relations Adjustment Act, but who were admitted to Article 1 of the Labor Relations Adjustment Act after the establishment of Article 2 of the Labor Relations Adjustment Act, was also included in the number of employees who were admitted to Article 2 of the Labor Relations Adjustment Act from September 10, 2012.

④ On September 25, 2012, the Defendant paid an amount of encouragement to 296 employees in all office employees other than the officers.

9) When concluding a collective agreement on wages and collective agreements in Articles 2 and 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 4 million to the members of the labor-management-management-related union No. 200,000, on the ground that the labor-management-management-related relationship with the Defendant has continued for two consecutive years, without any industrial action. On the other hand, the Defendant refused to pay money on the ground that the Defendant did not meet the “unfford” condition for two years, even if Article 1 was not an industrial action after the instant strike, in the course of negotiations for concluding the wage agreement in 2013 with the labor union No. 1. 2013.

① The number of union members under Article 1 was 351 as of March 30, 2012, but the number of union members under Article 1 as of February 6, 2014 is 50.

B) In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, the following circumstances are revealed.

① In almost all cases from 2005 to 2011, the Defendant has paid piece rates determined at a certain ratio (from 100% to 200%) compared to the bonus payment standards to the members of the union under Article 1 in accordance with the wage agreement and the fourth quarter labor-management council (from 200% to 10%) and piece rates determined at a certain amount (from 100,000 to 3 million won) (the above facts of recognition). Moreover, after the establishment of Article 2 labor-management in the Republic of Korea, the Defendant plans to pay only a certain percentage of the bonus payment standards under the name of “the Defendant’s bonus payment” under the name of “special encouragement amount” for a certain amount of payment. In addition, it was impossible to meet the requirements of Article 1 of the Labor-Management Act to grant the pertinent amount to the members of the union.

② In light of the fact that the Defendant was expected to pay an amount of unsatisfying to not more than 10 employees who subscribed to Article 2 from September 10, 2012 up to 10:0 a.m. to 10 p.m., the Defendant appears to have fully recognized the possibility that paying unsatisfying to members of the second union would lead to the withdrawal of some members of the union and the accession to Article 2 of the Trade Union.

③ In addition, the Defendant also paid an in-depth incentive to the office employees higher than the head of the department with no effect of the collective agreement under Article 2 of the Trade Union Act (the Defendant expressed his position on the ground of the payment in this part that the Defendant paid the same according to the practice of the Trade Union Act). As a result, the Defendant’s almost every employee other than the union members of the First Trade Union was paid with an in-depth incentive and mathic status.

④ Since 2013, the Defendant paid 4 million won for growth encouragement on the side of Article 2013 on the condition of “two consecutive years’ in dispute.” Although the first union did not engage in a new industrial action after the instant strike, it was placed in the situation where it fails to meet the payment terms of a lump-sum payment.

1. Fifth, as these series of circumstances continue, most of the union members of the first union seems to change their affiliation into the second union.

6. The strike of this case, which started as a single union within the defendant 1, seems to meet the lawful requirements as an industrial action, except as to whether it is legitimate to have not gone through the simplification of bargaining windows despite the recommendation by the North Chungcheong District Labor Relations Commission. Moreover, even if Article 10 does not go through the simplification of bargaining windows at the time of requesting collective bargaining to the defendant on March 30, 2012, circumstances such as multi-level circumstances that can recognize the whole purport of the pleading, i.e., the time when the Trade Union Act allowing multiple unions enters into force, i., the time of demanding the above bargaining, and even if there were only a single union, it is difficult to negotiate the provisions regarding the "collective bargaining procedures" of Article 207, which are not in force at least for the defendant 1 to have been in the position of a single union under the old Labor Relations Commission Act.

3) Sub-decisions

A) In full view of the above facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s payment of KRW 5.5 million to the union members, office employees, etc. under Article 2 of the Act, but the Plaintiffs, who belong to Article 1 of the Act, did not pay this part of the money on the ground that they engaged in the instant strike, constitutes an act of violating the employer’s duty of neutrality maintenance and constitutes an unfair labor practice or an unlawful act.

B) The Plaintiffs suffered losses from passive losses not paid KRW 5,50,000. The Defendant is obligated to pay damages to the Plaintiffs each of the damages amounting to KRW 5,500,000 for each of the damages and the damages amounting to that amount after September 12, 2012, for which it is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s duty to perform this duty from September 12, 2012 to September 2, 2015, and for which 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment (the Plaintiffs claimed damages from annual interest rate of KRW 6% per annum, which is a commercial statutory interest rate, on the ground that the Defendant’s obligation was based on the labor contract, but this court is reasonable to determine damages at the statutory interest rate of 5% per annum to recognize only the establishment of an unfair labor act or tort under the Civil Act as a civil damages claim based on the general binding force of the Plaintiffs.

D. Determination as to the portion of basic salary increase, and the portion of the payment of piece rates at the upper half of the year

1) The Plaintiffs asserts that, in addition to the amount of unpro rata encouragement, the amount of basic pay increase and the amount of performance-based bonus should be recognized as damages.

2) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s payment of the basic salary increase and the upper half-yearly bonus to the employees in the second labor union pursuant to the wage agreement in 2012 violates the employer’s duty not to be deemed as an unfair labor practice or tort, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3) The plaintiffs' allegation in this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges fixed-type

Judges Park Jong-young

(Omission)

[Ticket: Details of the plaintiffs' claim amount calculation] Does omitted

【Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Terms and Conditions Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

Article 29 (Power of Negotiations and Conclusion)

(1) The representative of a trade union shall negotiate and make a collective agreement with an employer or employers' association for the trade union or union members.

to enter into a contract.

(2) The representative of a representative bargaining trade union determined pursuant to Article 29-2 (hereinafter referred to as "representative bargaining trade union") shall negotiate.

All trade unions or members required shall have the authority to negotiate and conclude a collective agreement with an employer for all required trade unions or members.

(3) A person who is delegated by a trade union and an employer or employers' association with authority to negotiate or conclude a collective agreement.

to the extent that the union and the employer or employers' association are authorized to exercise their powers.

(c)

(4) A trade union and an employer or employers' association shall have the authority to negotiate or conclude a collective agreement pursuant to paragraph (3).

When such fact has been discovered, it shall be notified to the other party.

Article 29-2 (Procedures for Simplification of Negotiations)

(1) Two trade unions which are founded or joined by workers, regardless of their structural form at a business or workplace.

For merchants, a trade union shall be a representative bargaining trade union (in the case of merchants, a representative bargaining union consisting of two or more trade unions members.

A request for bargaining shall be made by determining an organization including an organization; hereinafter the same shall apply): Provided, That a representative labor group of bargaining pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be made.

within the time limit for the autonomous determination of conformity, the employer shall undergo procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows prescribed in this Article.

this shall not apply if the non-exclusive agreement has been given.

(2) All trade unions which have participated in the procedures for determining a representative bargaining trade union (hereinafter referred to as "procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows") shall be substituted by a representative bargaining trade union.

A representative bargaining trade union shall be autonomously determined within a period set by Ordinance.

(3) A representative bargaining trade union shall not be established within the period under paragraph (2) and shall obtain the consent of an employer under the proviso to paragraph (1)

labor union organized by a majority of all the members of the trade union participating in the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows.

union (at least two trade unions have participated in the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows by means of delegation or alliance, etc.)

A representative bargaining trade union shall be a majority of all members (including cases where it becomes a majority of all members).

(4) Where a representative bargaining trade union is not determined pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3), it shall participate in procedures for simplification of bargaining windows.

All trade unions shall jointly organize and use a bargaining delegation (hereafter referred to as "joint bargaining delegation" in this Article).

Any trade union entitled to participate in the joint bargaining delegation shall negotiate with a person. In such cases, the number of its members shall hold negotiations.

A trade union which has participated in the procedures for simplification of the Gu shall be at least 10/100 of all members of the trade union.

(5) Where it is impracticable to agree on the organization of the joint bargaining delegation pursuant to paragraph (4), a Labor Relations Commission shall apply for the relevant trade union.

(1) may be determined by taking into account the proportion of its members.

(6) In determining a representative bargaining trade union pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (4), the fact of request for bargaining and the number of union members.

Where there is an objection against a trade union, etc., the Labor Relations Commission shall receive a request from the trade union as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(h) make a decision on an objection.

(7) Procedures and effects of an objection against a decision made by the Labor Relations Commission pursuant to paragraphs (5) and (6) shall be as follows:

section 22.

(8) Negotiations, such as methods of requesting bargaining by a trade union, standards for calculating the number of union members for determining a representative bargaining trade union, etc.

Matters necessary for the procedures for simplification, the prevention of increase in negotiation costs, etc. shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 29-3 (Determination of Units of Negotiations)

(1) One company shall determine a representative bargaining trade union pursuant to Article 29-2 (hereinafter referred to as "representative bargaining trade union").

The business or workplace shall be the business or workplace.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a substantial difference in working conditions, type of employment, bargaining practices, etc. in one business or one place of business.

Labor Relations Commission deems it necessary to separate bargaining units in consideration of subparagraph (1).

A decision on the division of bargaining units may be made at the request of both or one of both parties.

(3) Articles 69 and 70 (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis to procedures for and effects of an appeal against a decision of the Labor Relations Commission pursuant to paragraph (2).

(4) Matters necessary for application for division of bargaining units, standards, procedures, etc. for determination by the Labor Relations Commission shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

of this section.

Article 29-4 (Duties, etc. of Fair Representation)

(1) A representative bargaining trade union and an employer shall incorporate between the trade unions which have participated in the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows or their members.

No discrimination shall be made without any reasonable reason.

(2) Where a representative bargaining trade union and an employer discriminate in violation of paragraph (1), the trade union shall be the date such discrimination is committed.

Three persons from the date of concluding a collective agreement, where part or all of the terms of the physical agreement violate paragraph (1).

The Labor Relations Commission may request the correction thereof within a month in accordance with the methods and procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(3) When the Labor Relations Commission recognizes a discrimination as having no reasonable grounds in respect of the request pursuant to paragraph (2), it shall correct it.

order required under this section.

(4) Articles 85 and 86 shall apply to procedures, etc. for dissatisfaction with an order or decision of the Labor Relations Commission pursuant to paragraph (3).

The provisions shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Article 30 (Principles of Negotiations, etc.)

(1) A trade union and an employer or employers' association shall negotiate and make a collective agreement with each other in good faith and sincerity and sincerity.

such authority shall not be abused.

(2) A trade union and an employer or employers' association shall refuse to negotiate or enter into a collective agreement without justifiable grounds.

shall not be neglected.

Article 31 (Preparation of Collective Agreement)

(1) A collective agreement shall be prepared in writing and signed or sealed by both parties.

(2) The parties to a collective agreement shall report to the administrative authorities within 15 days from the date of conclusion of the collective agreement.

(3) If any collective agreement is illegal, administrative agencies may order the correction thereof with a resolution of the Labor Relations Commission.

(2).

Article 32 (Effective Term of Collective Agreement)

(1) No collective agreement shall provide for an effective period exceeding two years.

(2) If a collective agreement provides for the effective period, or provides for the effective period exceeding the period referred to in paragraph (1).

the term of validity shall be two years.

(3) An organization in which both parties intend to enter into a new collective agreement before and after the expiration of the term of validity of the collective agreement.

If a new collective agreement is not concluded even though negotiation has been continued, there is a separate agreement.

Except as otherwise provided, the previous collective agreement shall remain in force for three months from the expiry date of its validity: Provided, That an organization

If a new collective agreement is not concluded even after the term of validity of the Convention, such new collective agreement

any other agreement to the effect that the previous collective agreement remains in force until such agreement is concluded, that agreement

In accordance with the former collective agreement, one of the parties shall be notified to the other party not later than six months prior to the intended date of termination.

(2) may terminate the contract.

Article 35 (General Binding Force)

A collective agreement in which more than half of the workers of the same kind employed at all times in a business or workplace is applied;

of the same kind of employee employed in the business or workplace concerned shall be subject to such collective agreement.

shall be used.

Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

Article 14-2 (Timing and Methods of Requesting Negotiations by Trade Unions)

(1) Where a collective agreement exists in the relevant business or place of business, a trade union shall do so pursuant to Article 29 (1) or 29-2 (1)

Pursuant to paragraph (1), a user may be requested to negotiate from three months before the expiration date of the period of validity.

, if there are two or more collective agreements, three months before the expiration date of the term of validity of the collective agreement which comes first.

from the date of becoming a user may request the user to negotiate.

(2) Where a trade union makes a request for bargaining to an employer pursuant to paragraph (1), it shall demand the trade union's name and its negotiation.

It shall be done in writing stating the matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, such as the number of members.

Article 14-3 (Public Announcement of Fact of Request for Negotiations by Trade Unions)

(1) Where an employer receives a request for bargaining from a trade union pursuant to Article 14-2, seven days from the date of receipt of such request.

Matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, such as the name of a trade union requesting such negotiations for a daily day;

Public announcement shall be made on the bulletin board, etc. of the funeral so that other trade unions and workers may be informed.

(2) Where an employer fails to publicly announce the fact of request for bargaining pursuant to paragraph (1) or falsely announces it.

Any Labor Relations Commission may request correction, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22269, Jul. 12, 2010>

(3) When a Labor Relations Commission receives a request for correction pursuant to paragraph (2), it shall substitute for it within ten days from the date it receives such request.

shall be subject to such a decision.

Article 14-4 (Timing and Methods of Requesting other Trade Unions to Make Negotiations)

Where there is a trade union which has requested bargaining to an employer pursuant to Article 14-2, another labor which intends to negotiate with the employer.

A cooperative shall provide an employer with a document stating the matters under Article 14-2 (2) within the period of public notice under Article 14-3 (1).

shall be required to negotiate with the Corporation.

Article 14-5 (Determination of Trade Union Requesting Negotiations)

(1) An employer shall negotiate pursuant to Articles 14-2 and 14-4 on the date following the expiration of the period of public announcement referred to in Article 14-3 (1).

the name of the trade union which requested such negotiations, and the date on which the trade union which requested such negotiations has been requested, shall be notified and notified.

Matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, such as the current number of association members, shall be publicly announced for five days.

(2) A trade union which has requested bargaining pursuant to Articles 14-2 and 14-4 shall announce publicly the details of a trade union pursuant to paragraph (1).

If it is deemed that it has not been publicly announced or publicly announced differently from its proposed content, it shall be subject to paragraph (1);

An objection may be raised to an employer during the period of public announcement.

(3) Where an employer deems the details of an objection filed under paragraph (2) appropriate, he/she shall comply with the same as the objection filed.

A public announcement shall be made for five days from the expiration date of the period of public announcement to the trade union which has raised such objection.

(4) Where an employer takes any of the following measures with respect to an objection filed under paragraph (2), the relevant union:

A partnership shall, within five days from the date stipulated in any of its subparagraphs, have jurisdiction over the Labor Relations Commission, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry

may request correction.

1. Where an employer fails to make a public announcement under paragraph (3): The day following the expiration of the period of public announcement under paragraph (1);

2. Where an employer has made a public announcement pursuant to paragraph (3) differently from the details applied by the relevant trade union: Public announcement pursuant to paragraph (3);

Date on which the period expires;

(5) When a Labor Relations Commission receives a request for correction pursuant to paragraph (4), it shall substitute for it within ten days from the date it receives such request.

shall be subject to such a decision.

Article 14-6 (Autonomous Decision, etc. of Representative Bargaining Trade Union)

(1) A trade union determined or decided as a trade union which has requested bargaining pursuant to Article 14-5 shall be pursuant to Article 29-2 (2) of the Act.

Where a representative bargaining trade union is voluntarily determined pursuant to Article 14-5, the date determined or determined pursuant to Article 14-5.

The date of 14th day shall be signed jointly by the representative, negotiating members, etc. of the representative bargaining trade union by the deadline.

The user shall be notified by signing or sealing the seal.

(2) After an employer has notified a representative bargaining trade union pursuant to paragraph (1), the decision of such representative bargaining trade union shall be made.

Article 29 (2) of the Act even if some trade unions of the trade unions which have participated in the procedure do not participate in the procedure thereafter.

The status of the representative bargaining trade union according to this section shall be maintained.

Article 14-7 (Determination, etc. of Representative Bargaining Trade Union by Major Trade Union)

(1) Where a representative bargaining trade union fails to be determined pursuant to Article 29-2 (2) of the Act and Article 14-6 of this Decree, the Act shall apply.

All unions participating in the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows pursuant to Article 29-2 (2) (hereinafter referred to as "procedures for simplification of bargaining windows").

A trade union organized by a majority of all its members (or methods of delegation, alliance, etc. by two or more trade unions)

a majority of all union members participating in the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows shall be included.

A major trade union (hereinafter referred to as "major trade union") shall become a private company within five days from the date on which the time limit under Article 14-6 (1) expires.

A trade union shall be notified to its employer of the name, representative, and fact that it is a majority trade union.

(2) Where an employer is notified of a major trade union pursuant to paragraph (1), it shall be within five days from the date such notification is received.

public announcement of employment shall be made to ensure that other trade unions and workers are informed of it.

(3) A labor union which intends to raise an objection against the majority with respect to a major trade union publicly announced pursuant to paragraph (2).

Any objection shall be filed with the Labor Relations Commission within the period of public notice under paragraph (2), as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor.

shall be determined by the representative bargaining trade union in the absence of such objection, and if there is no objection, the majority trade union shall become a representative bargaining trade union.

(4) A Labor Relations Commission in receipt of an objection pursuant to paragraph (3) shall all labor unions participating in the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows.

Notice of conformity and users, and employment, such as a list of members (limited to those with a signature or seal of members)

The number of members shall be fixed by submitting the documents prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor or having them attend the meeting.

shall be confirmed by the court.

(5) Where the number of union members is verified pursuant to paragraph (4), the base date shall be the labor for which the negotiation is requested pursuant to Article 14-5 (1).

The name, etc. of a cooperative shall be publicly announced.

(6) When a Labor Relations Commission confirms the number of union members pursuant to paragraph (4), it shall replace the union members who have joined two or more trade unions.

For each member, the number of members shall be calculated by any of the following methods:

1. Where union dues are paid to one trade union: The number 1 to the number of union members of the trade union to which union dues are paid;

must be added.

2. Where union dues are paid to not less than two trade unions: The number 1 shall be the number of trade unions to which union dues are paid; and

The number calculated after snow shall be added to the number of union members of the trade union to which the union fees are to be paid.

3. Where there is no one trade union that pays union dues: The number 1 shall be the number of trade unions to which a partner has joined; and

The number calculated after snow shall be added to the number of union members of the trade union to which the member belongs, respectively.

(7) No labor union or employer shall comply with necessary investigations, such as requests for submission of documents pursuant to paragraph (4).

In any case, the number of members shall be calculated and confirmed in accordance with the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor.

(8) A Labor Relations Commission shall have a major trade union as a result of an investigation and verification pursuant to paragraphs (4) through (7).

the representative bargaining trade union within 10 days from the date of receipt of such objection, if any.

shall be determined and notified to all trade unions and users who have participated in the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows: Provided, That this shall not apply

Where it is impracticable to confirm the number of union members within that period, such period shall not exceed ten days only once.

may be extended by the end of the year.

Article 14-8 (Organization and Notification of Autonomous Joint Negotiations)

(1) Where a representative bargaining trade union has not been determined pursuant to Article 29-2 (2) and (3) of the Act, paragraph (4) of the same Article shall apply.

A trade union entitled to participate in the joint bargaining delegation shall be classified as follows in order to negotiate with an employer:

A joint signature shall be organized by the joint bargaining delegation, such as the representative, negotiating members, etc. of the joint bargaining delegation within the period under the joint signature.

An official name or a seal shall be notified to the user.

1. Where there is no notification pursuant to Article 14-7 (1) and no announcement pursuant to paragraph (2) of the same Article because there is no majority trade union;

Note: Ten days from the expiration date of the period specified in Article 14-6 (1).

2. Where the Labor Relations Commission determines that there is no major trade union pursuant to Article 14-7 (8): Article 14-7 (8);

for five days from the date the decision of the Labor Relations Commission pursuant to the Labor Relations Commission is notified.

(2) Subsequent to the notification of the joint bargaining delegation pursuant to paragraph (1) to the employer, procedures for determining such joint bargaining delegation.

In accordance with Article 29 (2) of the Act, even if some trade unions of the participating trade unions do not participate in the subsequent procedures.

The status of the representative bargaining trade union is maintained.

Article 14-9 (Organization of Joint Negotiations by Decision of Labor Relations Commission)

(1) Where failing to reach an agreement on the organization of the joint bargaining delegation pursuant to Article 29-2 (4) of the Act and Article 14-8 (1) of this Decree.

Part or all of the trade unions entitled to participate in the organization of the joint bargaining delegation to the Labor Relations Commission under Article 29 of the Act.

2. Pursuant to paragraph (5), an application for determination of the organization of the joint bargaining delegation shall be filed.

(2) When a Labor Relations Commission receives an application for determination on the organization of the joint bargaining delegation pursuant to paragraph (1), it shall receive such application.

Within 10 days from the date of taking into account the ratio of the number of union members of each trade union to the total number of union members.

The number of persons participating in the joint bargaining delegation shall be determined and notified to the trade union and the user thereof.

, if it is difficult to determine within that period, the period shall not exceed 10 days only once.

section 31.

(3) The determination of the joint bargaining delegation pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be made by all the trade unions entitled to participate in the joint bargaining delegation.

shall be based on the ratio of the number of union members, and with respect to the number and proportion of union members, part or all of the trade union;

The provisions of Article 14-7 (4) through (7) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the filing of an objection to the addition.

(4) A trade union participating in the organization of a joint bargaining delegation shall, pursuant to paragraph (2), be established by a Labor Relations Commission to negotiate with an employer

The user shall be notified by selecting each negotiating member corresponding to the number of determined persons.

(5) When the joint bargaining delegation is organized pursuant to paragraph (4), the representative of the joint bargaining delegation shall participate in the joint bargaining delegation.

shall be determined by mutual agreement: Provided, That if no agreement is reached, labor unions which have the largest number of union members.

shall be represented by agreement.

Article 14-10 (Maintenance Period of Status of Representative Bargaining Trade Union)

(1) A representative bargaining trade union determined pursuant to Article 29-2 (2) through (5) of the Act shall commence at the time it is determined.

by the date according to the classification of the following subparagraphs, the status of the representative bargaining trade union shall be maintained, and a new representative bargaining trade union

Where such decision is made, the status of the representative bargaining trade union shall be maintained until it is determined.

1. Where the term of validity of the first collective agreement concluded with an employer after being determined as a representative bargaining trade union is two years: such term of validity;

The date on which the term of validity of a collective agreement expires

2. The term of validity of the first collective agreement concluded with an employer after being determined as a representative bargaining trade union is less than two years.

e. : The second anniversary of the date on which the collective agreement came into force;

(2) New representative bargaining labor even though the maintenance period of the status of a representative bargaining trade union under paragraph (1) has expired.

Where a union is not determined, the existing representative bargaining trade union shall not later than the time the new representative bargaining trade union is determined.

With respect to the implementation of the existing collective agreement, the status of the representative bargaining trade union shall be maintained.

(3) A collective agreement shall be concluded for one year from the date determined by a representative bargaining trade union pursuant to Article 29-2 of the Act.

Where it is not possible, any trade union may request an employer to negotiate. In such cases, Article 14-2 (2) shall be applied.

The provisions of Articles 14-3 through 14-9 shall apply. The end.