[1] Whether an agreement that the labor union entered into a collective agreement with the employer to enter into an unfavorable revision of the working conditions with the employer is null and void (negative), and the standard for determining whether the collective agreement significantly lacks rationality

[2] In a case where a school foundation Gap agreed to reduce the retirement age of workers from 60 to 54 years of age when entering into a labor union with a labor union comprised of employees belonging to the hospital Gap's own operation and agreed to reduce the retirement age of workers from 60 to 54 years of age, and the rules of employment changed the same content and treated 22 general employees including those above 54 years of age as retirement age, the case holding that the special agreement concerning retirement age under the special agreement and the rules of employment amended based thereon are null and void, and that retirement disposition made to Eul et

[1] Under the principle of autonomy of an agreement, a trade union may enter into a collective agreement with an employer to change working conditions at a disadvantage, as well as a collective agreement to change working conditions at a disadvantage with an employer. Thus, barring any special circumstance, agreement between such labor and management cannot be deemed null and void, and a trade union does not require individual consent or authorization from its employees for such agreement. However, in extenuating circumstances where a collective agreement to change working conditions at a disadvantage is deemed null and void, and thus, it shall be determined in light of various circumstances, such as the content of the collective agreement, the process of concluding the collective agreement, and the management status at the time of concluding the agreement.

[2] In a case where the school foundation Gap agreed to reduce the retirement age from 60 to 54 years of age when it entered into a labor union composed of the employees belonging to the hospital Gap's own operation and "the Special Convention on the Management, etc. of Employment in 2005 and 206" and agreed to reduce the retirement age of workers from 60 to 54 years of age, and changed the same content as the retirement age provision in the rules of employment, and treated them as retirement age, the case holding that in light of all the circumstances, it is deemed that it was prepared to promote the effectiveness of layoff by temporarily retiring workers above a certain age by early retirement through the method of shortening retirement age, and it is difficult to view that there is a reasonable ground because it discriminates against union members on the sole basis of the age that is not an objective and general standard for all workers. Accordingly, the part of the special agreement on retirement age and the rules of employment revised based thereon are null

[1] Articles 31 and 33 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [2] Articles 31 and 33 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da67536 delivered on September 29, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 2195)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) (Attorney No Sung-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appointed party)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu17846 decided April 23, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant supplementary intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the principle of autonomy of an agreement, a trade union may enter into a collective agreement with an employer to change working conditions in a disadvantage, as well as a collective agreement to change working conditions in a disadvantage with an employer. Thus, barring any special circumstance, agreement between such labor-management cannot be deemed null and void, and a trade union does not need to obtain individual consent or authorization from employees for such agreement, but such agreement shall be deemed null and void if there are special circumstances to deem that the collective agreement to change working conditions disadvantageously deviates from the purpose of a trade union due to substantially lack of rationality. In such a case, whether a collective agreement significantly lacks reasonableness shall be determined in light of the contents of the collective agreement, the circumstances leading up to the conclusion thereof, and the management status of the employer at the time of the conclusion of the agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da6753

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the first instance judgment, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) concluded on May 22, 2006 with △△ Hospital Branch of the National Health and Medical Workers’ Union (hereinafter “instant Trade Union”) composed of the Intervenor’s employees at ○○○ Hospital on the part of the Intervenor, and agreed to reduce the employees’ retirement age from 60 years to 54 years of age (hereinafter “the instant special agreement”), and agreed to reduce the employees’ retirement age at 205 and 206, and then changed the contents of the rules of employment to the same effect. On the other hand, the Intervenor agreed to reduce the retirement age from 60 years of age to 54 years of age under the provisions of the instant special agreement and the amended rules of employment on June 30, 206, which included 20 years of age to 54 years of age or older (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) and 22 of general employees including the Plaintiff and the designated parties to the instant collective agreement, but did not lower the retirement age to 20 years of age as the instant special agreement.

According to the above facts, the reduction of retirement age under the special agreement of this case was made as a self-help measure to overcome the business crisis of ○○ Hospital operated by the Intervenor. However, since the temporary application was planned at the time of the conclusion of the special agreement, it appears to have been prepared to promote the effectiveness of layoff by early retirement of workers above a certain age at once by means of reducing the retirement age. As long as the reduction of the retirement age of this case was devised as a means of early retirement of workers above a certain age, rather than setting objective and general standards for all workers, for which the reduction of the retirement age of this case aims at early retirement, the measures taken by the labor-management for the management status and improvement of business management of the Intervenor, even if considering the Intervenor’s efforts to early retirement of workers above a certain age, are considered as discrimination against the union members only by the age that the early retirement of workers above a certain age by means of

Therefore, the part concerning retirement age among the special agreement in this case and the rules of employment amended based thereon are null and void because they exceed the limit of disadvantageous change in working conditions. The retirement disposition against the plaintiff et al. conducted under the special agreement in this case and the rules of employment in this case constitutes dismissal.

The reasoning of the court below is somewhat inappropriate, but the conclusion of the court below that deemed the retirement disposition against the plaintiff et al. as dismissal on the premise that the part concerning retirement age and the revised rules of employment are null and void under the special agreement in this case is justifiable. Therefore, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to disadvantageous changes in working conditions under the collective agreement and rules of employment, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to ipso facto retirement

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.

[Separate] List of Appointors: Omitted

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)