해고무효확인
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. In order for a worker's industrial action to be lawful as to the ground of appeal No. 1, the subject of collective bargaining should be the subject of collective bargaining; second, the purpose of collective bargaining should be to create autonomous negotiations between labor and management to improve working conditions; third, the employer's refusal of collective bargaining to a specific demand to improve working conditions should undergo the procedure prescribed by the law, such as a decision to approve the union members, unless there are special circumstances; fourth, the means and method should be in harmony with the employer's property rights, as well as the exercise of violence.
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court determined that an assembly held on April 29, 2013 did not meet the legitimate requirements as an industrial action, based on the reasoning of the first instance judgment, citing the reasoning of the lower judgment. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that an assembly held on April 29, 2013 did not meet the legitimate requirements.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on legitimate industrial action
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, in principle, when a disciplinary measure is taken against a worker due to grounds for disciplinary action, the person having the authority to take the disciplinary action is at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary action, so that the disciplinary measure is unlawful, it is limited to the case where the disciplinary measure is recognized that the person having the authority to take the disciplinary action has abused the discretion that has been entrusted to the person having the authority to take the disciplinary action, and that the disciplinary measure