beta
서울행정법원 2014.04.24 2013구합25931

노동조합설립신고서반려처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was a trade union organized by the former National Public Officials’ Union, the National Democratic Public Officials’ Union, and the Court Public Officials’ Union through a merger resolution, and submitted a trade union establishment report to the Defendant on May 27, 2013.

B. On August 2, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to return the establishment report of the said trade union to the Plaintiff for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

As a result of the review of Article 7(2) of the amended Code submitted by the Plaintiff, the main text provides that “If a member is unfairly dismissed or is disputing the validity of dismissal, he/she shall maintain his/her membership in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations,” but the proviso provides that “Provided, That the interpretation of a specific qualification for a member shall be governed by Article 27(2)7 of the Code, so that the Central Executive Committee may be the basis for recognizing a person who is not allowed to join the union as a member of the union.”

Therefore, Article 7(2) of the Regulations can be deemed to allow a person who is not allowed to join the labor union. As such, Article 6(3) and Article 17(2) of the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Public Officials’ Labor Unions (hereinafter “Public Officials’ Labor Unions Act”) and Article 2 subparag. 4(d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act”) and Article 12(3) of the same Act shall be rejected.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, and Gap evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Even if the Central Execution Committee is authorized to interpret the rules, it can only interpret it as a partner pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations, and goes beyond the relevant laws and regulations.