[임금협정무효확인][하집1992(3),280]
The case holding that although the taxi commission was not indicated regarding the taxi commission when the side of the taxi company labor union selected negotiating members and delegated joint bargaining and authority to conclude the wages of drivers who are union members, it was also included in the authority delegated by the labor union to the negotiating members in relation to the taxi commission inasmuch as the taxi commission paid by drivers to the company is a prerequisite for the determination of wage.
Article 33 of the Trade Union Act
Seocho-si Trade Union
Public Transport Corporation and 16 others
1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.
2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).
Article 1(1) of the Group Wage Agreement concluded on June 27, 1991 between the Plaintiff (Appointeds; hereinafter the Plaintiff and the Defendants) and the Defendants confirms that the provision that “daily revenues shall be KRW 87,000,000 per day, excluding ties. The daily revenues shall be KRW 35,00,000 per week, and KRW 52,00 per week, and the daily revenues may be adjusted for each company.”
갑 제1,3,5호증, 갑 제2호증의 1 내지 5, 갑 제4호증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재와 증인 구희석의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 청주지역 택시회사들인 피고 회사들과 피고들 회사에 대응하는 17개 노동조합이 공동으로 1991년도 청주지역 택시회사의 임금교섭 및 체결을 하기로 하고, 원고 및 선정자들을 포함한 위 노동조합들(이하 원고측이라 한다)의 조합장들이 1991.5.4. 원고측 교섭위원으로 소외 임연규, 천명권, 정태순, 구희석, 곽기선을 선임한 사실, 위 교섭위원 중 소외 임연규, 천명권, 곽기선, 구희석은 1991.6.27.피고 회사들의 교섭위원인 소외 유종길, 김인제, 정순흥, 강정일과 단체임금협정을 체결하였는데, 그 협정 제1장 총칙 제1조 제1항에 청구취지 기재와 같이 운전종사원은 승객으로부터 받은 운송수입금중 최저 1일 주간 금 35,000원, 야간 금 52,000원 합꼐 금 87,000원을 택시회사에 납입하기로 하되, 주야 수입금은 회사별로 조정할수 있게 하는 내용의 사납금협정이 포함된 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 반증이 없다.
The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff merely delegated its negotiating members with the authority to negotiate and conclude common wages, and that the aforementioned negotiating members were null and void since they did not have delegated their authority to negotiate and conclude taxi commissions as above. As such, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s negotiating members, as a matter of course, concluded an agreement with the delegation of authority to negotiate and conclude taxi commissions, such agreement is valid. As such, the Defendants asserted that the agreement is valid. As such, the Plaintiff’s Negotiation members concluded an agreement with the delegation of authority to do so, 1, 2-2, 1, 2-2, 2-3, 1, 2-2, 1, 2- 3, 2-2, 3, 2-1 through 5, 3-2, 3-1 through 3-4, 2-2, and 9-3, and 9-1 through 3-4, and the Plaintiff’s 9-1 and 9-2’s testimony regarding the same amount of taxi commissions to which they were delegated to the aforementioned negotiating members, the Plaintiff’s’s were also entitled to enter into the above taxi commission agreement.
Therefore, the above agreement on taxi commission is valid. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that it is null and void is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. (Attachment omitted)
Judges Kim Nam-tae (Presiding Judge)