[2] The case holding that a worker belonging to a social welfare foundation for the purpose of operating a sanatorium for mentally ill persons under the interpretation of the rules of an industrial trade union which provides for workers in the metal industry and metal-related industry for the organization of workers shall not be qualified as a member

[2] The case holding that a worker belonging to a social welfare foundation for the purpose of operating a sanatorium for mentally ill persons under the interpretation of the rules of an industrial trade union which provides for workers in the metal industry and metal-related industry for the organization of workers is not eligible for membership of the industrial trade

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the intervention by the Defendant is assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in Gap evidence 1 and 2 by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff Foundation”) is a social welfare foundation that employs more than 400 full-time workers at the second floor of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 112-1 Mobilization Center and operates the sanatorium operation business and the operation business of the sanatorium operation business for mentally ill persons and disabled persons. Accordingly, there is a beneficiary disabled person, beneficiary disabled person, hospital for mentally disabled persons, Seoul mental hospital, and hospital for mentally ill persons. The Defendant Intervenor’s supplementary intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a nationwide unit trade union established around February 2001 with workers, etc. engaged in metal industry and metal-related industries as its members. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17320, Feb. 2, 2001>

B. On February 14, 2003, 230 of the employees of the Plaintiff Foundation, the Intervenor Association executive organ decided to join the Intervenor Association, and received it. The Intervenor Association chairperson notified the Intervenor Foundation of the establishment of the Gyeonggi Northern District Association in Seoul, Seoul Branch of the Plaintiff Association on February 28, 2003.

C. On November 15, 2004, the Intervenor Union filed an application for remedy for unfair labor practices with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission on November 15, 2004, by asserting that the Plaintiff’s medical care center for persons with disabilities and the Intervenor’s union members affiliated with the Intervenor’s medical care center for persons with disabilities had engaged in unfair labor practices, such as prohibiting the return to the Plaintiff’s business, interference with undue mental education, unfair change of occupation, and other restaurant use with other employees. The Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy for unfair labor practices with the Intervenor’s union on January 21, 2005, and issued the Plaintiff’s order for remedy that “the Plaintiff Foundation shall suspend discriminatory acts against the Intervenor’s union and shall not give discriminatory treatment compared to the employees who did not join the Intervenor’s union.”

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Foundation filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on March 2, 2005, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on August 22, 2005.

2. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful.

A. Plaintiff Foundation’s assertion

(1) The Intervenor Mutual Aid Association prescribed that workers belonging to the Plaintiff Foundation shall join the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association as members of the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association. However, the Plaintiff Foundation’s employees belonging to the Plaintiff Foundation may not become members of the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association according to the rules of the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association since the Plaintiff’s business operated by the Plaintiff Foundation is public health and social welfare business that does not relate to metal. Therefore, the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association cannot join the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association as members of the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association. Therefore, the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association is not entitled to file an application for remedy for unfair labor practices against the Plaintiff Foundation. Nevertheless, the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association was unlawful on the premise that the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association may file an application for remedy for unfair labor practices against

(2) As to the Intervenor’s unfair labor practice asserted by the Intervenor Union, the review decision of this case, which was recognized as an unfair labor practice, cannot be seen as an unfair labor practice in the following respect, is unlawful.

(A) The Intervenor Union members’ return to work does not interfere with the Plaintiff Foundation’s obstruction, but only derived from the intent of the Intervenor Union to use a dispute arising from the conflict between the Intervenor Union members and the members of the Social Welfare Association and their return to work in political terms.

(B) Mental education for the participant union members of the Plaintiff Foundation was conducted with a view to preventing any cruel conduct against the participants of the Plaintiff Foundation due to labor conflict and any cruel conduct against the students with disabilities, and facilitating the adaptation of work due to long-term strike.

(C) The change of the position of the members of the Intervenor Union at the Medical Care Center for Disabled Persons with Disabilities to the Medical Care Center for Disabled Persons was an inevitable measure taken by 59 persons with severe disabilities.

(D) The Plaintiff Foundation did not prohibit the Intervenor’s members from using a restaurant and using a transit bus.

(E) The Plaintiff Foundation is not intentionally excluding the Intervenor’s union members from the allocation of night work, but can not put them into night work due to different opinions on the part of the Intervenor’s union members on overtime work.

(b) Markets:

First, we examine whether the intervenor union is eligible to file a petition for remedy for unfair labor practices in this case.

(1) Facts of recognition

In full view of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 33-1 and 2-2, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(A) The Plaintiff Foundation was established on March 19, 1984, and its objective project is ① the establishment and operation of sanatoriums for mentally ill persons, ② the establishment and operation of medical institutions, ③ the operation of sanatoriums for disabled persons, ④ the operation of social welfare centers, ⑤ other related projects to effectively carry out the above projects, ⑤ welfare projects for older persons, etc.

(B) On February 14, 2003, where 230 of the employees belonging to the Plaintiff Foundation agreed to join the Intervenor’s association among the employees belonging to the Plaintiff Foundation, the rules of the Intervenor’s association (hereinafter “the rules prior to the amendment of this case”) were prescribed as follows.

Article 2 (Those Subject to Organization): Workers of the metal industry and metal-related industries and persons falling under any of the following subparagraphs may join an association:

1. A person who is dismissed in connection with the partnership activities;

2. Persons appointed to a union;

3. Persons who have worked for the unemployed in the metal industry and metal-related industries, and those who have worked in the metal industry for not less than three months and the metal-related industries;

4. Persons who have retired from office in the metal industry and metal-related industries.

Article 8 (Classification of Members): (1) Members who fall under Article 2 and are approved by the partnership after undergoing the procedures for joining the partnership prescribed by the partnership.

Article 9 (Joining and Withdrawal from a Cooperative: A person who intends to join a cooperative with the declaration, demotion, or bylaws of the cooperative shall submit an application for joining determined by the cooperative to the relevant branch or sub-branch, and obtain the qualification for membership with the approval of the chairperson.

(C) On December 3, 2004, the Plaintiff Foundation filed a lawsuit against the Intervenor Association on December 3, 2004 against the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2004Gahap19037, and brought a lawsuit to confirm the existence of the parties to collective bargaining, the Plaintiff Foundation’s employees affiliated with the Plaintiff Foundation did not qualify as an association member because they were not included in the Intervenor Association’s organization. On October 28, 2004, the Intervenor Association continued to file the lawsuit, thereby expanding the scope of the association members by adding Article 2 of the rules of the Intervenor Association (hereinafter “the amended rules”) to the following amendments.

Article 2 (Those Subject to Organization): Workers of the metal industry and metal-related industries and persons falling under any of the following subparagraphs may join an association:

1. A person who is dismissed in connection with the partnership activities;

2. Persons appointed to a union;

3. Persons having work experience in the metal industry and metal-related industries, and the unemployed seeking jobs.

4. Other persons who work in the manufacturing industry.

5. Other persons who are approved by the Central Committee, after deliberating upon their accession by the branch operation committee, if they wish to enter.

(D) On February 15, 2005, at the Seoul District Office of the Intervenor Association, the Intervenor Association re-accompetence of the members of the Intervenor Association, composed of the employees belonging to the Plaintiff Foundation, pursuant to the instant amendment provision, and the Intervenor Association Central Committee approved the participation of the Intervenor Association on March 2, 2005.

(2) Whether the intervenor union is a party to the application for remedy for unfair labor practice

(A) Whether to interpret the rules of the intervenor association and to allow the joining of the intervenor association as a member of the intervenor association are matters to be decided by the intervenor association with the authority to interpret the rules and make decisions thereof. However, this is limited to the case where the internal relationship between the intervenor association and the intervenor association is concerned with the third party, and it cannot be seen as identical to the case of external relationship between the intervenor union and the third party. Thus, in determining the validity of joining the intervenor association between the intervenor association and the third party, the objective meaning of the rules of the intervenor association in question should be reasonably interpreted reasonably through the language and text. If the objective meaning is not clearly expressed by the language and text, it should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and common sense so that the parties can comply with the ideology of social justice and equity, by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, the motive and developments leading up to the provision, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the provision, etc.

(B) However, prior to the amendment, Article 2 provides that the employees belonging to the Plaintiff Foundation shall be organized, and the objective meaning of the language and text of the provision is clearly revealed. The Plaintiff Foundation’s objective business is not related to the metal industry as seen earlier, and it cannot be deemed that the employees belonging to the Plaintiff Foundation are qualified for membership. As such, in relation to the Plaintiff Foundation’s foundation, membership in the Intervenor’s association at the time of the amendment of the Rules before the amendment of its employees cannot be deemed effective (as for the Intervenor’s foundation’s organization, and the amendment of the Rules requires a special resolution by the affirmative votes of at least two thirds of the incumbent members (voting), and the employees belonging to the Plaintiff Foundation shall be deemed entitled to membership in the Intervenor’s association (Article 47 subparag. 1 of the Rules before the amendment), and it shall be deemed that there is no evidence that the Intervenor’s employees belonging to the Plaintiff Foundation were entitled to membership in the Intervenor’s association at the time of the amendment of the Rules, if there is a special resolution by the 20th of the Intervenor’s employees belonging to the Plaintiff Foundation.

(C) Therefore, on November 15, 2004, the Intervenor Union cannot be deemed to have been in the position or qualification to file a petition for remedy for unfair labor practice, since the employees belonging to the Plaintiff Foundation were not members of the Intervenor Union, even though the Intervenor Union filed a petition against the Plaintiff Foundation for remedy for unfair labor practice.

(3) Ultimately, the instant remedy is unlawful, without having to further examine the other allegations of the Plaintiff Foundation, that the instant remedy was lawful, even though it was illegal for the Intervenor’s association, as it was made by the Intervenor not entitled to the remedy.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff foundation's claim of this case is justified and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Jeong Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)