(a) The case holding that there is no procedural defect to invalidate a disciplinary action, even if the notice of the second disciplinary committee's holding was given immediately before the meeting of the committee, if the notice of the first disciplinary committee's holding was made lawfully;

(b) Whether it constitutes a ground for disciplinary action for holding an assembly which was not permitted in the company during the occupation time;

A. If the facts of the first disciplinary committee were notified in writing three days prior to the holding of the committee, the procedural defect to make it invalid because it cannot be said that there is no time to prepare a vindication because it is in a situation where he is already aware of the fact that he is already being referred to the disciplinary committee for any reason even if he is notified prior to the holding of the second disciplinary committee which was adopted.

B. Even if an unauthorized meeting was conducted during the occupation time, it constitutes grounds for disciplinary action as long as it was conducted in the internal company where the right to command labor was affected by the rules of employment.

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da13731 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2231) (Gong1992, 1834 delivered on May 12, 1992). Supreme Court Decision 90Da8084 delivered on April 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1364 delivered on September 25, 1992)

Plaintiff

Pung Electrical Co., Ltd., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other

Busan High Court Decision 92Na12483 delivered on June 3, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Article 23 of the collective agreement entered into between the defendant company and the defendant company's trade union is justified as a whole through the fact-finding, and the company, as a procedure for disciplinary action, shall notify in writing the union members and the union of the fact-finding three days prior to the date and time and place of the disciplinary committee, and the disciplinary committee shall give the union members an opportunity to vindicate. The disciplinary action which does not comply with such procedure shall be null and void. On June 14, 1990, the defendant company did not notify the plaintiff of the date and place of the disciplinary committee's holding, the meeting room at Changwon Factory, the disciplinary committee's attendance request stated in violation of Article 53, Paragraph 19, Paragraph 21, and Paragraph 2 of the collective agreement, but the plaintiff did not appear at the above disciplinary committee's time and place of the second disciplinary committee's holding prior to the date and time of the second disciplinary action's holding of the disciplinary committee's meeting, and the plaintiff shall not be notified in writing of the grounds for disciplinary action.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

Even if an unauthorized assembly was conducted during the occupation-finding period, it constitutes grounds for disciplinary action, as long as it was committed in the form of an act prohibited by the rules of employment in the internal company under the right to command labor. In light of the facts duly recognized by the court below, even if all the circumstances cited by the theory of lawsuit are considered, the disciplinary action against the plaintiff cannot be criticized as deviating from the scope of discretion. It is also without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)