Whether it is an industrial action to collectively refuse the previous holiday work performed for the purpose of accomplishing the claims of workers.

If workers collectively refuse to work on holidays that were ordinarily conducted for the purpose of accomplishing their claims, this constitutes an industrial action under Article 3 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, which obstructs the normal operation of the business of the company.

Article 3 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, Article 46 of the Labor Standards Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Intervenor Jinsung-U.S. Trade Union

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Jsung-U.S. Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu18134 delivered on June 18, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the plaintiff assistant intervenor are examined.

1. Examining the evidence prepared by the court below according to the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as theory of lawsuit.

2. As duly established by the court below, if the intervenor company did not work for the intervenor company on November 25, 1987, because the intervenor company did not work for leum truck driver at the temporary labor union, in principle, on the condition that it constitutes a regular holiday, and on Sundays 1, 3, and the company's 2, 4, 5, and the 6th anniversary of the fact that the agreement was made for the company to designate the necessary number of employees and work for the above reasons, the intervenor company's employees including the plaintiff et al. refuse to work for the past on the grounds of its ruling for the purpose of accomplishing their claim such as the removal of personal non-subcontracts, it constitutes an act impeding the normal operation of the company's business and constitutes an industrial action as provided in Article 3 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, since the plaintiff's act of refusing to work for the plaintiff's labor union by taking into account the following reasons: the plaintiff's act of refusing to work for leumburgically violating the Labor Dispute Mediation Committee's disciplinary action against the intervenor's labor dispute.

In addition, whether dismissal procedure is legitimate or not does not affect the establishment of unfair labor practices as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu4508 delivered on May 23, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13035 delivered on January 15, 1993). Thus, even though the intervenor company disciplinary action against the plaintiff, such as family litigation, and the intervenor company did not undergo consultation with a trade union under Article 14(2) of the collective agreement or disciplinary action under Article 18 of the Disciplinary Rules of the Intervenor Company, the above conclusion cannot be decided solely for such reasons.

The judgment of the court below is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Trade Union Act, the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, or in the misconception of facts or the omission of judgment or the failure of reasoning.

4. All appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)