B. The meaning of "agreement" in the collective agreement with respect to the personnel management of the executives of a trade union, and the meaning of "agreement" with respect to the personnel management of the union members, if any;

(c)the principles of good faith and the waiver and abuse of the right to refuse to agree in exercising the right to pre-agreement;

(d) The case holding that a disciplinary dismissal disposition is valid as long as the trade union abused the right to refuse to reach agreement without reaching an agreement with the trade union;

B. According to the personnel consultation clause of a collective agreement, if the term “pre-agreement” is used for the personnel affairs of the union members, and the term “pre-consultation” is separately used for the personnel affairs of the union members, it shall be deemed that there is a difference between the union members and the union members as to the right to the personnel affairs of the union at the time of the negotiation, and the degree of restriction shall not be deemed to vary to the extent that there is a difference to the degree that the opinion of the union members should be taken into account more prudently and more carefully in the case of the pre-consultation with the union members. Thus, unlike the “pre-consultation” of the purport that the pre-consultation to take into account the opinion of the union members for the careful exercise of the right to the personnel affairs of the union members, it is reasonable to interpret that the pre-agreement should be made by faithfully exchanging the opinion with the union and the union members in order

C. The employer’s exercise of the employer’s right to discipline against an employee belonging to the essential authority should be reasonably exercised on the basis of the principle of trust and good faith. If a member of the trade union refuses the attendance of the disciplinary committee to interfere with or interfere with the holding or deliberation of the disciplinary committee or refuses the disciplinary action on the ground of his/her apparent and significant grounds for disciplinary action even though he/she does not present any legitimate opinion on the grounds that he/she is a member of the trade union, it constitutes waiver or abuse of the right to refuse the agreement and thus, the disciplinary action cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that he/she did not receive any prior agreement.

(d) Trade unions abuse the right to refuse to agree and thus reach an agreement with trade unions;

The case holding that a disciplinary dismissal disposition is valid.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. On the validity of the violation of the terms of personnel consultation (Agreement),

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiffs 1 were the chief executive officer of the defendant company's trade union who was working as the production employee of the defendant company and the defendant company's 2-year disciplinary action against the defendant company's 1-2-year disciplinary action or the defendant company's disciplinary action against the defendant company's 3-year disciplinary action against the defendant company's 1-2-year disciplinary action against the defendant company's 1-6-year disciplinary action or the defendant company's 3-2-year disciplinary action against the defendant company's 1-6-year disciplinary action against the defendant company's 1-6-year disciplinary action against the defendant company's 1-6-year disciplinary action against the defendant company's 3-year disciplinary action against the defendant company's 1-6-year disciplinary action against the defendant company's 3-year disciplinary action against the defendant company's 1-6-year disciplinary action against the defendant company's 3-year disciplinary action against the defendant company's 1-6-year disciplinary action against the defendant company's 27.

Where a trade union provides that an employer shall give an opportunity to present his/her opinion in order to ensure decentness in dealing with personnel dispositions, the validity of personnel dispositions shall not be affected even if the agreement is not followed. However, where an employer requires the prior consent or consent of the trade union in dealing with personnel dispositions, or where it provides that an employer shall take personnel dispositions by considering the agreement with the trade union upon consultation with his/her opinion in dealing with personnel dispositions, a personnel disposition without undergoing such procedures shall be deemed null and void in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da475 delivered on April 14, 192; Supreme Court Decision 91Da22100 delivered on May 22, 192; Supreme Court Decision 92Da32074 delivered on December 8, 192; Supreme Court Decision 92Da34940 delivered on April 23, 1993).

However, according to the records and comparison of relevant evidence, the personnel management and disciplinary action between the union is stipulated in Article 37 subparagraph 2 of the collective agreement in this case as "pre-agreement with the union", while Article 37 subparagraph 3 of the collective agreement provides that "the prior consultation with the union shall be made on the personnel management and disciplinary action against the union members, and the prior consultation shall be made on the personnel management and disciplinary action of the union members, and the prior consultation shall be made on the personnel management and disciplinary action of the union members, and the prior consultation shall be made on the union members". In addition, Article 45 of the agreement provides that "the company shall issue a warning, reprimand, reduction in salary, and suspension from office of the union members shall be made in accordance with the above-mentioned regulations, and the dismissal of the executive officers and executive members of the union shall also be made in accordance with the prior agreement with the union."

In principle, the personnel consultation (agreement) clause in the collective agreement is a provision that limits the right of personnel in the employer according to the result of negotiations between labor and management, and the choice of the phrase is not adopted by only one of the employers or labor unions, but adopted by the final agreement through negotiations between labor and management. Therefore, it is ultimately a product based on the degree of the negotiating power at the time of negotiations between labor and management.

Therefore, if a collective agreement provides the terms of "pre-agreement" as to the personnel affairs of the union members, and the terms of "pre-consultation" as to the personnel affairs of the union members, it shall be deemed that there is a difference between the union members and the union members as to the defendant's personnel rights at the time of the negotiation, and the degree of restriction shall not be deemed that there is a difference to the extent that there is a difference to the extent that the opinion of the union members should be taken into account more carefully and more carefully in the case of pre-consultation with the union members. Thus, unlike the "pre-consultation" that simply means that the opinion of the union members should be taken into account for the prudent exercise of the personnel affairs of the union members, it is reasonable to interpret that the pre-agreement is stipulated that the personnel affairs of the union members should be faithfully exchanged with the union and the opinion of the union, and that the pre-agreement should be exercised in terms

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant did not have a complaint for the validity of the disciplinary action without going through the procedure of prior agreement through exchange of opinions between labor and management in the case of the dismissal of the disciplinary action against the plaintiff who is an executive officer of the trade union, should not be erroneous for the interpretation of the provisions of the collective agreement.

However, even if a trade union was subject to prior agreement in taking disciplinary action against the executives of the trade union as the product of labor-management negotiations, it would not be denied the exercise of the employer's right to discipline against the executives of the trade union. Thus, the exercise of the trade union's right to pre-agreement should be reasonably exercised on the basis of the principle of good faith.

In the case of this case, although the collective agreement provides that a union member shall be subject to prior agreement on the grounds of disciplinary action against the union executives in the collective agreement, there is no provision on the specific procedure or method of such prior agreement under the collective agreement or other personnel relations regulations, and in the composition of the disciplinary committee (or a severe standing committee), if a member of the union becomes an essential member, it would be common to exchange opinions between labor and management in the deliberation procedure of the disciplinary committee. In addition, since the intent of the member of the disciplinary committee represents the opinion of the union immediately, it constitutes a prior agreement of the union member in the relevant deliberation procedure, and if a member of the union refuses to reach agreement on the grounds of reasonable grounds, the employer's exercise of the disciplinary right is bound to be restricted. However, if a member of the disciplinary committee refuses to attend the disciplinary committee itself to obstruct or interfere with the holding or deliberation of the disciplinary committee or refuses to present the disciplinary committee itself, even if there is a clear and significant ground for disciplinary action, it would not be deemed that it constitutes a waiver or abuse of the so-called disciplinary right.

In this case, according to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiffs, as the head of the Ministry of Education and the deputy head of the organization of the Ministry of Education of the labor union, led the defendant company to have obstructed the business of the defendant company and caused enormous property damage. The defendant company's efforts to reach an agreement with the labor union in order to avoid the execution of detention warrant as well as the crime of interference with business and the crime of violation of the Act on the Mediation of Labor Disputes, were committed without permission for 14 days or more (the plaintiffs were sentenced to punishment of this case, but the above crimes were committed as above crimes). It is objectively obvious that "the employees were absent without permission for 7 days or more" as grounds for disciplinary punishment under Article 13 subparagraph 5 of the above punishment provision. The disciplinary action members of the labor union were notified by the defendant company of the holding of disciplinary committee against the plaintiffs, and the defendant company did not reach an agreement with the labor union's employer in order to achieve an agreement with the labor union side, and therefore, the defendant company did not unilaterally agree with the plaintiff's labor union member's right to refuse to disciplinary action.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the disciplinary dismissal measure against the plaintiffs was valid even if it was done without prior agreement with the trade union. Therefore, the court below's decision that the interpretation of the personnel agreement provision as above did not affect the conclusion of the judgment in this case.

The issue eventually goes back to the fact that there is no reason.

2.With respect to the holding notification of the Disciplinary Committee:

When the court below acknowledged that the defendant notified the plaintiffs of the holding of the disciplinary committee on July 4, 1990, the process of documentary evidence is justified in light of the records, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts by failing to provide evidence contrary to the rules of experience and logic.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)