[노동조합및노동관계조정법위반][미간행]
[1] The meaning of "an act of disadvantage" under Article 81 subparagraph 1 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act
[2] The case holding that if the representative director of a company expressed his intention to dismiss or treat the chairman, vice-chairman, and members disadvantageously, but did not realize it, it does not constitute an unfair labor practice under Article 81 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act
[1] Article 81 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [2] Article 81 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act
Defendant 1 and one other
Prosecutor
Jeonju District Court Decision 2004No290 delivered on June 4, 2004
The appeal is dismissed.
Article 81 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that "any act of dismissal or disadvantage to a worker on the ground that the worker has joined or was seeking to join a trade union or has conducted other lawful acts for the operation of a trade union" and the employer has a provision punishing the worker in violation of this provision. "the act of giving disadvantage" refers to the act of treating the worker at a disadvantage in legal and economic aspects, such as temporary retirement, change of occupation, placement, conversion, salary reduction, etc. in addition to dismissal, and it is necessary to appear as a practical act or measure. Thus, the mere expression of the worker's intent to treat the worker at a disadvantage in the future cannot be viewed as an act of controlling or participating in the organization or operation of a trade union provided for in subparagraph 4 of Article 81 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, apart from the fact that it can be seen as an act of giving disadvantage as provided for in subparagraph 1 of Article 81 of the above Act.
Under the same view of the court below, it is proper for the court below to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance on the premise that the defendants 1, the representative director of the company, made the statement that he would dismiss the trade union to the defendant 2, the chairperson of the trade union, and the vice-chairperson to submit a letter of resignation to the Lee, and that the defendant maintenance personnel who is the chief of the company would not work at the public performance team unless the union should withdraw from the trade union to the lescar and the Jeju, although it is recognized that the above expression of intent is realized, unless there is any evidence to prove that the defendants removed the trade union, dismissed the transfer of the right, or released the lescar and the lescar from the public performance team, the facts charged on the premise that the defendants fall under Article 81 subparagraph 1 of the above Act shall be deemed to fall under the case where there is no evidence of crime
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)