[퇴직금][공1990.6.15.(874),1157]
A. Whether the amendment of the rules of employment, which unilaterally alters the existing working conditions to workers, is effective in a case where the amendment of the rules of employment was made without the consent of the worker group (negative)
B. Whether the previous rules of employment applies to workers who were employed after the revision of the rules of employment in the above case (affirmative)
A. Although the right to prepare and revise the rules of employment is, in principle, to unilaterally change the contents of the existing working conditions to workers with disadvantage due to the revision of the rules of employment, the consent is required by the collective decision-making method of the employee group to which the previous rules of employment had been applied. If there is a labor union consisting of more than half of the workers, the union should consent, and if there is no such union, the majority of the workers at the meeting method shall be required, and if there is no such union, the
B. The revision of the rules of employment is null and void without the consent of the labor union or other group decision-making method organized by a majority of workers when a company which is an employer changes retirement benefits through a short-term payment system to workers who are employers. Therefore, the previous rules of employment shall also apply to workers who were employed after the amendment of the rules of employment.
Article 95 of the Labor Standards Act
A. Supreme Court Decision 77Da355 Decided July 26, 197 (Gong1977, 10242) (Gong1988, 949) decided May 10, 1988 (Gong1988, 949) 88Meu4277 decided May 9, 1989 (Gong1989, 88) decided March 12, 1990 (Gong190, 82)
Lee Young-young, Attorney Kim Chang-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant
Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and 3 others
Seoul High Court Decision 88Na41769 delivered on February 28, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
As to the Defendant’s Attorney’s ground of appeal:
Even if the right to draft and revise the rules of employment is, in principle, an employer intends to unilaterally change the contents of the existing working conditions to the disadvantage of workers by the revision of the rules of employment, it requires the consent by collective decision-making method of the workers group to which the previous rules of employment had been applied. The consent method is the opinion of the party members that, if there is a labor union consisting of a majority of workers, the labor union should consent by the method of meeting of the workers, and if there is no such union, the consent by the majority of the workers shall be required, and if there is no such union, it shall not be effective as an amendment of the rules of employment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 7Da355, Jul. 26, 197; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2578, May 10, 198; Supreme Court Decision 88
In the above opinion of the court below, the defendant's amendment to the unfavorable rules of employment to workers who change the retirement benefits under the progressive payment system to the single-income payment system was null and void since there was no consent by the decision-making method of the labor union, etc. organized by the majority of workers, and the previous rules of employment are applied to the plaintiff who entered after the amendment to the above rules of employment. This is justified and there is no error of law as argued in the judgment below.
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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)