Article 81 Subparag. 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that “the act of a worker to join or join a trade union, or to organize a trade union, or to disadvantage the worker on the ground that the worker has committed any other lawful act for the trade union’s operations.” Thus, unfair labor practices under Article 81 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act refer to cases where the worker “justifiable act for the trade union’s operations” are conducted by the employer and the employer has treated discriminatory acts that disadvantage the worker, such as dismissal, etc. on the ground of such act. The assertion of such fact and burden of proof are on the part of claiming that the worker is an unfair labor practice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu2557, Jul. 26, 1991; 95Nu16738, Sept. 10, 196).

In this regard, in a case where the employer claims that an employer’s act constitutes unfair labor practice because the employee was dismissed on the ground that the employee was a non-member of the labor union on the ground that the employee was a member of the labor union and that the employee was dismissed on the ground that the employee was the member of the labor union, the determination of whether such act constitutes unfair labor practice ought to be made after examining whether there was a statistical significant gap between both groups in personnel management and personnel management, regardless of whether such difference in the difference in personnel management in personnel management was attributable to the employer’s anti-cooperative intent intending to disadvantage the non-member on the ground that the employee was a member of the labor union, namely, whether there was an objective circumstance to presume the existence of the employer’s intent to engage in unfair labor practice, and whether the employee was not subject to dismissal in accordance with the criteria for selection of those who were dismissed without such discrimination in personnel management and personnel management.

The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant dismissal of the members of the Plaintiff’s branch of the Intervenor’s Intervenor constitutes unfair labor practices as stipulated in Article 81 subparag. 1 of the above Act, on the ground that the Defendant’s Intervenor did not submit all documents that included the results of evaluation, such as an individual comprehensive evaluation table for each worker employed by the Defendant’s assistant intervenor as the criteria for the selection of those subject to dismissal, and an individual aggregate table for each employee, and that the Defendant’s assistant intervenor assessed unfavorablely against non-members compared to non-members, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Examining the above legal principles and the evidence relations appearing in the record, the lower court’s fact-finding and determination are justifiable.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, the rule of experience, the omission of judgment, or the misapprehension of the legal principle.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)