[부당해고구제재심판정취소][공1993.9.15.(952),2311]
The case holding that although disciplinary regulations differ in terms of the provisions of the collective agreement concerning disciplinary procedures, they are deemed effective provisions not violating the collective agreement as they supplement a collective agreement with trade unions after the conclusion of the collective agreement.
The case holding that although disciplinary regulations are different from those of the collective agreement concerning disciplinary procedures, they are deemed effective provisions not violating the collective agreement as they supplement collective agreement by being prepared under agreement with trade unions after the conclusion of the collective agreement.
Articles 27(1) and 97 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 36 of the Trade Union Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff
The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission
Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu18677 delivered on October 2, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal
According to Article 29 of the collective agreement of the ○○ Transport Co., Ltd. and Article 10 of the Disciplinary Rule, in order to take disciplinary action against employees of the non-party company, the disciplinary committee shall go through a resolution of the disciplinary committee. The disciplinary committee shall be composed of at least three members, respectively, and the majority of the members, including the chairperson, and shall pass a resolution with the consent of at least a majority of the number of members present, but the chairperson shall have a right of decision when the numbers of votes of votes of votes of votes of votes of votes of votes of the chairperson, and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3 of the representative director, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the vice president, the non-party 5, and the non-party 6 of the collective bargaining agreement who are present on the part of the worker, had agreed to dismiss the plaintiff. However, although the above non-party 1, the chairperson, exercising the right of decision and declaring dismissal in cases of votes of votes of the plaintiff, the disciplinary rules and the disciplinary action against the plaintiff were effective.
There is no error of misconception of facts, such as the theory of litigation, in recognizing the above voting fact.
According to the records, as seen earlier, Article 29 of the collective agreement provides that a company shall take disciplinary action through a disciplinary committee when it intends to take disciplinary action against union members, and the disciplinary committee shall take up at least three labor-management members with the consent of a majority of all union members. Article 10 of the disciplinary regulation provides that both labor and management shall take a vote with the attendance of a majority including the chairperson and the consent of a majority of the union members, but the disciplinary committee shall have a vote, and the chairperson shall have a right to vote, and when the number of votes of approval and disapproval is the same, the above disciplinary provision is made on the basis of Article 82(1) of the rules of employment, and therefore the same disciplinary procedure is also effective as a kind of rules of employment. Therefore, the same disciplinary provision in the collective agreement and the
Article 97 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 10 (3) of the Labor Standards Act, which provides that the chairperson shall exercise the right of decision in the case of the numbers of votes of approval and disapproval in light of the provisions of Article 36 of the Trade Union Act, cannot be deemed to be effective as it goes against the provisions of a collective agreement. However, in this case, the decision of the court below that the exercise of the right of decision by the chairperson in accordance with the above disciplinary provision shall be justified. This is because Article 10 (3) of the above disciplinary provision is prepared after the date of March 28, 1989 when a collective agreement was concluded, and it is clear that it was made under an agreement with the representative trade union of the worker, not unilaterally made by the non-party company, and therefore, the contents of the disciplinary provision shall be deemed to be acceptance from the worker's side. Ultimately, Article 10 (3) of the disciplinary provision is a valid provision as it supplements Article 29 (2) of the collective agreement, and a resolution against the plaintiff has its effect.
There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to disciplinary proceedings in the judgment below. We are without merit.
In addition, it is reasonable for the non-party company to dismiss the plaintiff by applying the rules of employment and disciplinary regulations and it shall not be deemed an abuse of the right of disciplinary action. There is no error of misunderstanding of facts concerning the grounds for disciplinary action or misunderstanding of legal principles concerning the Labor Standards Act
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)