[부당노동행위구제재심판정취소][공1992.12.15.(934),3317]
(a) Requirements and criteria for promotional measures for workers to constitute unfair labor practice;
(b) The case holding that measures taken by a worker to promote despite his/her expression of intent to refuse promotion are not unfair labor practices;
A. If an employer is found to be an executive officer of a trade union or an employee who is actively engaged in trade union activities with intent to prosecute or interfere with trade union activities of a worker, then is disqualified for membership, unfair labor practices can be established as an act that gives disadvantages to workers engaged in trade union activities. In this case, whether promotion of a worker was made by an employer’s intent to engage in unfair labor practices shall be determined by considering all the circumstances, such as the time of promotion, relevance to union activities, necessity of work, eligibility for ability, and the influence of promotion of the worker in question on union activities.
(b) The case holding that the measure of promotion was not unfair labor practices despite the worker's expression of intent to refuse promotion;
Article 39 of the Trade Union Act
Plaintiff
The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission
[Defendant-Appellee] Korea SPS Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee
Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu25354 delivered on May 15, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
1. We examine the grounds of appeal on mistake of facts, incomplete hearing, and violation of the rules of evidence.
In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is justified and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts, incomplete hearing, or violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the process of the lawsuit.
In addition, it appears that the court below acknowledged that the defendant joining the defendant company (hereinafter referred to as the "participating company") is promoting most of the persons subject to promotion, unless there is any special reason for disqualification, and that the defendant joining class 3 as an employee, such as the plaintiff, and promoting most of the persons subject to promotion to Grade 2 as an employee, is obvious in light of the evidence as stated by the court below.
In the end, all the arguments are without merit because they merely criticizes the original judgment without any legal confirmation of facts belonging to the former authority or criticizes the original judgment on the premise of facts different from the facts recognized by the original judgment.
2. We examine the grounds of appeal by misunderstanding legal principles.
In principle, the determination of whether to promote workers is economic and personal benefits, which belongs to the employer's authority and discretion. However, in cases where an employer is an employee of a trade union or an employee who is actively engaged in the trade union activities by promoting the employee's qualification to be an employee who is an employee of a trade union or to be an employee who has actively engaged in the trade union activities, unfair labor practices may be established as an act that gives disadvantages to the employee who is engaged in the trade union activities. In such cases, whether promotion of workers was made by the employer's intent shall be determined by considering all the circumstances, such as the time of promotion, relevance to the union activities, the necessity of the business, the eligibility for the ability, the reasonableness of the human capacity
The court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff was engaged in active trade union activities, such as a representative and vice-chairperson of a trade union, and that the plaintiff expressed his intention that he would not want to continue promotion to serve as a trade union activities in 191. However, it cannot be readily concluded that the participant company entered into a collective agreement under which the participant company would grant a certain class or lower employee status, excluding a specific position, with an intention to discontinue promotion of the union activities. Rather, the participant company has also promoted the participant company to a regular person every year without any special ground for disqualification through an examination of promotion based on personnel status and score of the participant company, and the participant company did not have an obligation to refuse promotion to serve as an intervenor during the period of 190, taking into account the fact that the participant company did not want promotion to be promoted to the participant company's position at the time of voluntary promotion, but did not want promotion to be excluded from the intervenor's previous position and order, and that the participant company did not want the plaintiff's refusal to serve as an intervenor during the period of 190s regular promotion.
In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be deemed that there is an error of law of misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, and if it is related to trade union activities when handling personal disadvantage, it shall be deemed that there is an intention of anti-trade union, and it shall not be accepted as it is nothing more than an independent opinion. All arguments are without merit.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)