[2] In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal, the effect of dismissal on the administrative remedy procedure on the ground of unfair labor practice in a case where dismissal ruling becomes final and conclusive

[3] The case holding that an employee at a hospital's act of wearing stacks on the sanitary clothes and engaging in collective action in violation of service regulations constitutes a justifiable ground for disciplinary action

[2] Where an unfavorable measure such as dismissal against a worker himself/herself constitutes an unfair labor practice and a request for remedy is filed, and the dismissal decision has become final and conclusive in the lawsuit seeking nullification of dismissal, etc. filed by him/her against the employer separately during the procedure of remedy, a disadvantageous measure such as dismissal of the worker has been recognized as legitimate. As such, the Labor Relations Commission has become unable to issue an order for remedy because the unfavorable measure constitutes an unfair labor practice, and thus, the benefit of remedy is extinguished. In such a case, the lawsuit seeking revocation of the review decision by the Central Labor Relations Commission, which dismissed the application for review or cancelled the decision by the Local Labor Relations Commission which dismissed the application for remedy by maintaining the decision by the Local Labor Relations Commission which issued the order for remedy, is unlawful as there is no benefit of the lawsuit.

[3] The case holding that in case where the union members, who are employees of the hospital, continued to engage in the act of harming the interests and stability of the hospital by allowing the union members to wear a yellow singz on the sanitary uniform that requires all the union members to wear without the hospital's approval, and the hospital installed an exclusive bulletin board of the union to ensure the legitimate public relations activities of the union and notified the union members to use it, the union members of the union, but arbitrarily posted the poster, etc. at a place other than the designated place, and it is recognized that the union members' voluntary removal request for voluntary removal after installing the banner at their own discretion on the outer wall of the hospital, which is not directly related to the union or the hospital, without the hospital's approval, and the union members' act constitutes "when the staff members violated the Acts and subordinate statutes and the regulations," which are grounds for disciplinary action under Article 51 subparagraph 1 of the hospital's personnel regulations, or "in the event that the union members violated the law and the duty of disciplinary action, or violated the order of the union members, it also constitutes a group violating the order of disciplinary action 1.

On the first ground for appeal

Where an employer is deemed to have dismissed workers on the ground of their legitimate partnership activities, unlike the ground for dismissal, the dismissal shall be deemed to be unfair labor practices (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu4659, Oct. 24, 1989; 89Nu8217, Aug. 10, 1990; 90Nu7685, Apr. 23, 1991; 93Nu4595, Dec. 10, 1993; 94Nu3940, Aug. 26, 1994; 94Nu3940, Dec. 23, 1994; 94Nu301, Dec. 23, 1994; 97Nu3989, Apr. 29, 198; 199; 20Nu1989, Dec. 23, 1994).

Therefore, in a case where a dismissal ruling was rendered in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal, etc. filed against an employer separately during the procedure of remedy on the ground that a disadvantageous measure such as dismissal, etc. against an employee himself/herself constitutes an unfair labor practice, it shall be deemed that a disadvantageous measure such as dismissal, etc. against an employee was justifiable. As such, the Labor Relations Commission should be deemed to have terminated the benefits of remedy since the unfavorable measure cannot issue a remedy order because it constitutes an unfair labor practice. In such a case, a lawsuit seeking revocation of a review ruling by the National Labor Relations Commission, which dismissed an application for review or cancelled a decision by the Local Labor Relations Commission that rejected an application for remedy by maintaining the decision of the Local Labor Relations Commission that rejected the application for review or issued a remedy order, shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit

Therefore, the court below's decision to maintain the decision of the Gyeonggi-do Regional Labor Relations Commission which dismissed a request for remedy filed by the defendant's assistant intervenor (hereinafter the intervenor) on the ground that the dismissal order against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party 1 separately asserted that there is no justifiable ground, and that the dismissal order against the defendant's assistant intervenor (hereinafter the intervenor) was rendered final and conclusive in the lawsuit for nullification of invalidity of the dismissal order, etc., and that the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party 1 who dismissed their request for review of this case was dismissed on the ground that it is unlawful, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of remedy for unfair labor practices, such as the theory

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

Article 6 of the Intervenor’s Service Regulations provides that “An intervenor shall observe the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, comply with the order of his superior officer, and faithfully perform his duties.” Article 16 provides that “The break time of rest may be freely used to the extent that does not disturb the order and regulation of the hospital.” Article 56 provides that “a person who borrows clothes must wear it during his service and if he is unable to wear it for unavoidable reasons, he shall obtain approval from the head of the relevant institution.” According to the records, two and three others are required to wear all employees without the Intervenor’s approval on the sanitary uniform, which includes the assistance of the lower court’s ruling, and thus, an intervenor’s failure to comply with the order by the president to voluntarily obey the order of his superior officer, who did not comply with the order of defamation, and thus, constitutes a violation of the rules of disciplinary reasons, such as the selection of the intervenor at will and the removal of his official bulletin board, which is an intervenor, and thus, constitutes a violation of the rules of disciplinary reasons, such as the selection of the intervenor at will and removal.

There is no reason for this issue.

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)