(a) Where the disciplinary action which became the object of an application for remedy against unfair labor practices has been changed thereafter, the object of adjudication by the Labor Relations Commission;

(b) Where the specific facts alleged as unfair labor practice are multiple, the number of copies as administrative dispositions by the Labor Relations Commission’s order for remedy or dismissal dismissal thereof.

A. The procedure for remedy for unfair labor practice is limited to specific facts that constitute the act of unfair labor practice which was subject to the remedy by the competent Labor Relations Commission. Thus, even if the initial disciplinary measure subject to the remedy was changed thereafter, the local Labor Relations Commission or the National Labor Relations Commission should be subject to the initial disciplinary measure, unless the remedy changes thereafter.

B. The remedy system for unfair labor practices is a system that examines the specific facts alleged to be an unfair labor practice by an employee and determines and orders appropriate remedy in a case where it constitutes unfair labor practice. Therefore, specific facts alleged to be an unfair labor practice are subject to examination. Therefore, even if the specific facts alleged to be an unfair labor practice are only one remedy method issued by the Labor Relations Commission, and each remedy method can be independently implemented, the remedy order as an administrative disposition should be deemed to be one. However, if the specific facts alleged to be an unfair labor practice are multiple, it is reasonable to view that the remedy order or dismissal ruling by the Labor Relations Commission as an administrative disposition is multiple.

(a) Article 40(b) of the Trade Union Act; Articles 42 and 43 of the Trade Union Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [general]

Plaintiff

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

[Defendant-Appellee] Korea Telecommunication Corporation et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu17442 delivered on December 16, 1993

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

The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers and Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor are examined together.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the plaintiff's dismissal of the above disciplinary action against the intervenor 1 who joined the defendant 2's 1978 company (hereinafter referred to as the intervenor 1's company) on March 15, 197 and worked as the intervenor 1's 5th class member of the new 191 company. The plaintiff's dismissal of the above disciplinary action against the intervenor 2's disciplinary action on November 11, 1991 as disciplinary action on the 18th day of the same month. The plaintiff's dismissal of the above disciplinary action against the intervenor 19's new 19th day after the above disciplinary action against the plaintiff 19's new 19th day of November 11, 191. The plaintiff's dismissal of the above disciplinary action against the intervenor 1's new 19th day of the above disciplinary action against the plaintiff 2's new 19th day of the above disciplinary action against the defendant 1's previous 19th day of the above disciplinary action against the defendant 191's new 19th day.

2. However, the procedure for remedy for unfair labor practice is only limited to specific facts that constitute the act of unfair labor practice subject to the request for remedy by the competent Labor Relations Commission. Thus, even if the initial disciplinary measure against the plaintiff was changed thereafter, the local Labor Relations Commission or the National Labor Relations Commission should be subject to the initial disciplinary measure unless the plaintiff's request was changed.

In light of the records and the above legal principles, it is reasonable that the Regional Labor Relations Commission or the National Labor Relations Commission is subject to the initial one-month disciplinary disposition of suspension from office.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the decision of this case was a wrong determination of disciplinary action subject to its determination. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the object of adjudication by the Labor Relations Commission, and such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

In addition, the remedy system for unfair labor practices is a system that examines the specific facts alleged to be an unfair labor practice by an employee, and determines and orders appropriate remedy in cases of unfair labor practice. Therefore, specific facts alleged to be an unfair labor practice are subject to examination, and even if there are more than one specific facts alleged to be an unfair labor practice, the remedy order as an administrative disposition should be deemed to be one, even if there are several remedy methods issued by the Labor Relations Commission, and each remedy method can be independently implemented. However, if there are more than one specific facts alleged to be an unfair labor practice, it is reasonable to view that the remedy order or dismissal ruling by the Labor Relations Commission as an administrative disposition is multiple.

If the facts were duly determined by the court below in this case, the specific facts alleged as unfair labor practice are disciplinary action and transfer order, and the number of the Labor Relations Commission's decision of dismissal as an administrative disposition is two. Therefore, if a new trial ruling as to disciplinary action is illegal, only the new trial ruling should be revoked, and if a new trial ruling as to disciplinary action is illegal, the new trial ruling as to disciplinary action cannot be revoked, and the new trial ruling as to a separate administrative disposition cannot be revoked. Thus, the court below should have further deliberated and judged whether the new trial ruling as to a transfer order is unlawful or not.

Nevertheless, the court below did not deliberate and decide on the illegality of the decision of reexamination on the order of transfer. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)