A. In the collective agreement, the phrase “when submitting a weekend at least five times a year” is defined as grounds for disciplinary action and, at the same time, the phrase “when submitting three times the weekends” is inserted as “when submitting three times the weekends due to the type of the disciplinary action,” the interpretation of the part regarding the weapons;

B. Criteria to determine the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal on the ground of “when the end of the time is submitted at least five times a year” as referred to in paragraph (a)

(c) The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that disciplinary dismissal against a worker who was subject to sanctions for submission of a report on the end of time five times during the period of service within one year was abuse and deviation from the right of disciplinary action;

A. In a collective agreement, “when submitting a weekend at least five times a year” is stipulated as grounds for disciplinary action, so if the number of times subject to sanctions for submitting a weekend or a weekend is less than five times a year, that person can not refer to disciplinary action alone. However, if the collective agreement provides for disciplinary punishment for the kind of disciplinary action pursuant to the grounds for disciplinary action, and the reprimand disposition provides for “when submitting three times a weekend,” it is contradictory to each other. Thus, in order to reasonably interpret the provisions of conflict in the collective agreement in favor of workers, it should be deemed that the type of disciplinary action is defined as one of the grounds for disciplinary action and that the phrase “when submitting three times a weekend,” which is stated as “when submitting three times a weekend,” which is stated as one of the grounds for disciplinary action.

B. In determining the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal on the ground of “if a person subject to disciplinary action was submitted not less than five times a year” which is the grounds for disciplinary action stipulated in a collective agreement, the determination shall be based on whether the person subject to disciplinary action is in a situation where the employer is unable to continue the labor contract relations with the worker in question by not simply formally constituting the above grounds for disciplinary action but rather, by “the fact that the person subject to disciplinary action submitted a letter at least five times a year or was subject to disciplinary action at least five times a year on the last day”. In order to make such a determination, the determination shall be based on a comprehensive review of all the circumstances such as the circumstances under which the person subject to disciplinary action was subject to sanctions for submission of the letter of time, the detailed details and degree of the misconduct that the person subject to disciplinary action was subject to the disposition, the impact on the company’s order, such as the risk of disturbing the company’s deceptive order, whether the person subject to disciplinary action was against his misconduct by submitting the letter of time according to the disciplinary action, the past attitude of work

(c) The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that disciplinary dismissal against a worker who was subject to sanctions for submission of a written end-of-time report five times during the period of service within one year was abuse and deviation from the right of disciplinary action

Articles 27(1) and 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na14488 delivered on August 1, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu19912 delivered on September 16, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Defendant and Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s ground of appeal is examined together.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the following evidence: (a) the plaintiff refused to submit a statement of time once every five times even after being subject to sanctions from the defendant joining the defendant company (hereinafter the intervenor company) for submitting a statement of time on five occasions due to the defective facts as stated in its reasoning; (b) although the plaintiff's act constitutes "when submitting a statement of time at least five times a year," the grounds for disciplinary action under Article 24 subparagraph 5 of the collective agreement, the plaintiff's submission of the statement of time at each time does not seem to have so; (c) the collective agreement does not stipulate that "when submitting a statement of time at least five times a year" is not a ground for immediate disciplinary action; (d) the type of disciplinary action was divided into warnings, reprimands, salary reduction, suspension of attendance, and disciplinary action; and (e) the dismissal of the plaintiff is too excessive than the grounds for disciplinary action in this case, and thus, it did not have justifiable grounds for dismissal or dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.

2. However, the above determination by the court below on the legitimacy of the dismissal of disciplinary action is difficult to accept.

A. Article 24 of the collective agreement of the intervenor company provides that "a company may punish any member of its members who falls under any of the following subparagraphs" and subparagraph 5 of Article 24 provides that "when the end of the year has been submitted not less than five times a year," and Article 25 provides that a warning, reprimand, salary reduction, suspension of attendance, and disciplinary dismissal as a kind of disciplinary action, and a reprimand disposition provides that "when the end of the year has been submitted not less than three times a year."

As such, in a collective agreement, “when submitting the weekends at least five times a year,” the grounds for disciplinary action are stipulated as grounds for disciplinary action. If the number of times subject to sanctions for submitting the weekends is less than five times a year, the relevant person cannot refer the same to disciplinary action only on the grounds therefor, but the collective agreement provides for disciplinary punishment for the type of disciplinary action pursuant to the grounds for disciplinary action, and the reprimand disposition does not conflict with each other.

Therefore, in order to reasonably interpret the conflicting provisions in the collective agreement favorably to workers, it is inevitable to view that the type of disciplinary action is defined, and that the phrase “time of submission three times at the end of the three times” stated in the reprimand disposition, which is stated as one of the above, is meaningful.

Therefore, the court below's determination on the legitimacy of the dismissal of this case is erroneous on the basis of the fact that "at the time of submitting three times the end of the time" under the above collective agreement only provides for the grounds for reprimand.

B. In determining the legitimacy of a disciplinary dismissal on the ground that “if a person subject to disciplinary action submits a written statement at least five times a year,” which is the grounds for disciplinary action under the collective agreement of the intervenor company, the determination shall be based on whether the person subject to disciplinary action, not simply formally constitutes the above grounds for disciplinary action, but rather, on the basis of whether the person subject to disciplinary action, submitted a written statement at least five times a year or was subject to disciplinary action at least five times a year, in a situation where the employer cannot continue to engage in labor contract relations with the worker in question through social norms.” In order to make such a determination, it shall be comprehensively examined whether the person subject to disciplinary action was subject to sanctions for submission of a written statement at the time, the detailed contents and degree of the offense subject to the disposition, the impact on the company’s order, such as the risk of disturbing the company’s deceptive order, and whether the person subject to disciplinary action was against his/her own fact by submitting a written statement at the time in accordance with the disciplinary action, and whether there was any history of other disciplinary action due to the company order.

In this case, the reason why the plaintiff was subject to sanctions against the intervenor company on five occasions for a period of time from October 15, 1991 to 1 year is as stated in the judgment of the court below. Some of the plaintiff's specific misconducts of the plaintiff subject to such measures constitute a misconduct that requires sanctions against the intervenor company for the suspension of attendance which is heavier than the sanctions against the plaintiff's submission of the notice of time under the original rules of employment. Among them, it does not seem that the degree of the misconduct is less than that of the company's legitimate order. If the plaintiff neglected the worker's behavior, there is a risk of serious disturbance in the company's deceptive scheme. Furthermore, the plaintiff's failure to submit the notice of time under the sanctions does not seem to be against the company's misconduct, and the plaintiff's attitude to deny the plaintiff company's exercise of disciplinary rights against each of the above misconducts, and the plaintiff's specific misconducts of the plaintiff subject to such measures should not comply with the labor-management consultation, and the plaintiff's demand to submit the plaintiff's labor contract to the intervenor's 190.

C. Although there are some circumstances, the court below's decision that the dismissal of this case was an unfair dismissal on the grounds as stated in its reasoning should ultimately mislead the facts as to the legitimacy of the dismissal dismissal, and further misleads the legal principles as to the justifiable reasons under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and it is clear that this affected the judgment, and therefore, it is therefore justified

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed by accepting the appeal, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)