Jeon National Housing Trade Union (Law Firm Inn, Attorney Cho Jae-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The same transportation company (Law Firm Han, Attorney Doh-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Ui Government District Court Order 2012Kahap272 dated June 29, 2012

1. The creditor's appeal is dismissed;

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the creditor.

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The debtor shall conduct collective bargaining in good faith with respect to the creditor's collective bargaining claims concerning the bargaining matters listed in the separate sheet, and the enforcement officer shall publicly notify the purport of the above order in an appropriate manner, and if the debtor fails to perform the above obligation, he shall pay 5,00,000 won per day of delay until he/she performs the above obligation to the creditor.

1. cite the decision of the court of first instance;

The grounds for this Court’s statement concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court’s decision, except for the second instance’s determination as to the conjunctive assertion, No. 5 of the first instance court’s decision No. 8 (b). Thus, this Court cited it in accordance with Article 203-3(1) of the Civil Execution Rule.

B. Determination on the Preliminary Claim

Furthermore, it is reasonable to interpret the "Enforcement Date of this Act" as July 1, 201 under the proviso of Article 1 of the Addenda to the former Trade Union Act as the "Enforcement Date" in full view of both the purpose, purpose, and relationship with other provisions of the former Trade Union Act, and the creditor union union has a right to demand collective bargaining with the debtor company as a representative bargaining trade union under Article 29-2 of the former Trade Union Act from around December 27, 2010 to June 27, 201. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that the creditor union union, which was under collective bargaining with the debtor company as of July 1, 201, has a right to demand collective bargaining with the debtor company as of July 1, 201 under Article 4 of the Addenda to the former Trade Union Act. Thus, if the creditor union did not enter into collective bargaining with the representative bargaining union under Article 14-10 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act for a period of 17 years from July 1, 2011.

In light of Article 29(2) through (4) and Article 29-2 through 29-5 of the former Trade Union Act, the former Trade Union Act completely permits the establishment of multiple trade unions at one business or workplace, while adopting a system of simplification of bargaining windows to determine a representative trade union and conduct collective bargaining in one business or workplace regardless of its structural form, Article 1 of the Addenda of the former Trade Union Act provides that the enforcement date of the former Trade Union Act shall be as of January 1, 201, but Article 4 of the Addenda of the former Trade Union Act provides that the above provision on simplification of bargaining windows such as representative trade union shall be as of July 1, 201. On the other hand, it is difficult to view that the above application for provisional disposition of Article 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act has been made by the creditors of the company and the creditors of the company for which the period of collective bargaining is in force from 60 years to 10 years after the enforcement date of this Act. On the other hand, the creditors of the company and the creditors of the company can be seen as of 215 years.

Meanwhile, in light of the purport of Article 14-10(3) of the Addenda of the former Trade Union Act, a creditor labor union cannot be deemed to be identical to “the case of a representative bargaining trade union determined pursuant to Article 29-2 of the same Act” under Article 14-10(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. However, the purport of Article 4 of the Addenda of the former Trade Union Act is to protect the right to collective bargaining of a trade union under collective bargaining at the time of the enforcement of the system for the simplification of bargaining windows, and does not restrict other trade unions’ right to negotiate. It is difficult to recognize the status and authority superior to the representative bargaining trade union determined through the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows on July 1, 201 only because it is under collective bargaining at the time of the enforcement of the system for the simplification of bargaining windows, and the wording of the above Addenda itself is also “this Act,” and thus, it is reasonable to deem that Article 14 of the former Trade Union Act applies to all creditors regardless of whether the negotiating party under Article 4 of the above Addenda or not.

In addition, a creditor union's union asserts that "one year from the date of determination" in Article 14-10 (3) of the former Trade Union Act should be interpreted as "from the time when certain union is a representative bargaining trade union or a representative trade union is not disputed." Thus, it is reasonable to view that Article 4 of the above Addenda as "a provision prepared to deal with legal relations between various unions and companies in a transition period under which the establishment of multiple unions and the establishment of a new system of simplification of negotiating windows for each union and each union according to the establishment of multiple unions and the following circumstances recognized by the records and examination of the case. If the starting point is determined as the creditor union's union's assertion, it is unclear and ambiguous, thereby impairing legal stability between the parties concerned. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the starting point of the negotiating period in the case of a negotiating party pursuant to Article 4 of the above Addenda as the starting point of the negotiating period is fixed on July 1, 2011." Thus, the above argument in the creditor union

Finally, in a case where collective bargaining is interrupted between a representative bargaining trade union and an employer due to a cause attributable to an employer, the period during which such bargaining has been interrupted is not included in the period of one-year grant under Article 14-10(3) of the former Trade Union Act. Therefore, in this case, the obligee labor union should be extended the period for which the obligee labor union can conclude collective bargaining with the obligor company. However, the materials submitted by the obligee labor union alone cannot be deemed to have ceased collective bargaining between the obligee union and the obligor company due to a cause attributable to the obligor company. Thus, the above argument in the obligee labor union based on this premise is insufficient, and therefore, the above argument

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the motion of this case by the creditor is dismissed as it is without merit, and the decision of the court of first instance is just and it is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Sang-sung (Presiding Judge)