[2] In a case where a labor-management council was not held for about seven months, the case holding that a representative of an organization, other than the chairman of the labor-management council, may not be punished for a violation of the duty to hold a labor-management council under Articles 32 and 12 (1) of the former Act on the Promotion of Workers' Participation and Cooperation

[2] In a case where a labor-management council was not held for about seven months, the case holding that a representative of an organization under its jurisdiction, who is not the chairperson of the labor-management council, may not be punished for a violation of the duty to hold a labor-management council under Articles 32 and 12 (1) of the former Act on the Promotion of Workers' Participation and Cooperation (amended by Act No. 8815 of Dec. 27, 2007)

Article 12(1) of the former Act on the Promotion of Workers’ Participation and Cooperation (amended by Act No. 8815, Dec. 27, 2007; hereinafter “Act”) provides that a labor-management council shall hold a meeting regularly every three months. Article 13(1) provides that a chairperson of the labor-management council shall convene the meeting once every three months. Article 32 provides that where a labor-management council violates the duty to hold a regular meeting of the labor-management council under Article 12(1) and an employer is the subject of the breach of such duty, the employer shall be punished by a fine.

According to the interpretation of the above provision, the person who holds a meeting of the labor-management council through the procedure for convening the meeting of the labor-management council shall be deemed to be the representative of the labor-management council and the chairperson who is the subject of the above meeting. In addition, the Act on Punishment requires strict interpretation and the purpose of enacting the above Act is to enhance common interests through mutual participation and cooperation between labor and management, but Article 20 of the Act requires the employer to make a resolution of the labor-management council on certain matters related to labor-management relations, while Article 21 of the Act imposes the duty to report and explain to the employer on the whole of the management plan, while Article 32 of the Act provides the worker with the right to report and explain as part of the measures to ensure the effectiveness of the guarantee, it means a case where the chairperson of the labor-management council does not convene the meeting, as a matter of principle, unless there are special circumstances.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is justified in holding that the fact that the labor-management council of the Korea Institute of Tax Research was not held between April 8, 2005 and November 22, 2006, as stated in the facts charged of this case, is not held. However, the chairperson of the labor-management council was in charge of the representative of the workers, while the chairperson of the labor-management council was in charge of the labor-management council during the above period, as well as that of the pending issue at which both labor and management are faced with respect to the establishment, etc. of labor-management union within the above research institute and continued for a long period of time. As such, the representative of the above research institute at that time was the representative, but the defendant who was not the chairperson of

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the above law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)