A. Scope of legitimacy of trade union activities

(b) The case holding that an act of holding an extraordinary general meeting of a trade union constitutes a justifiable act of a trade union as a whole, even though the time has been one hour after holding an extraordinary general meeting during working hours so that all union members may attend in order to hold an pros and cons vote on an industrial action;

(a) In order to deem the activities of a trade union to be justifiable, such activities must be deemed to be the activities of a trade union, or that the implied authorization or approval of a trade union is necessary for the maintenance and improvement of working conditions and the enhancement of workers’ economic status, and should be helpful for the strengthening of workers’ unity, except as otherwise provided for in rules of employment or collective agreement or provided for practice or consent of the employer; in the activities of a trade union within the workplace, reasonable discipline or restrictions based on the employer’s right to manage facilities shall be followed; and in such a way as violence and destruction shall not be followed;

(b) The case holding that an act of holding an extraordinary general meeting of a trade union constitutes a legitimate act of a trade union as a whole, even if the time has been one hour after holding an extraordinary general meeting during working hours so that all union members may attend in order to hold a vote for and against an industrial action;

Article 2 of the Trade Union Act, Articles 20 and 314 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

Changwon District Court Decision 92No823 delivered on February 5, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. If the activity of a trade union is deemed justifiable, its illegality is denied in accordance with Article 2 of the Trade Union Act and Article 20 of the Criminal Act. Thus, in order to deem the activity of a trade union to be justified, it shall be necessary to maintain working conditions and to enhance workers' unity in terms of the nature of the activity, or an implied authorization or approval of the trade union. It shall be an act that is necessary to promote the maintenance of working conditions and the enhancement of workers' economic status, and it shall be done outside the working hours, except as otherwise provided in the rules of employment or collective agreement, or provided by the rules of employment or collective agreement, or with the employer's consent. In the activities of a trade union in the workplace, it shall follow reasonable regulations or restrictions based on the employer's right to manage the facilities, and it shall not be done by means of violence and destruction (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do3044, Apr.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Defendant 1, as the secretary general of the non-indicted stock company, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, as the vice-chairperson, reported a dispute on May 4, 1991 at the trade union, and Defendant 3, as the vice-chairperson, notified the above company in writing two times in order to hold an extraordinary general meeting of the trade union to conduct the above pro-con voting from 08:00 to 12:00 of May 18, 1991, in order to hold the above company's trade union's right to cooperate with the above company in order to hold the pro-con voting for industrial action, which is not continuously negotiated with the above company's labor union, the above company's union members, as the vice-chairperson, and then the union members, from 00:0 to 12:00 of May 18, 1991 to 120:0 of the above company's union members, and there was no error in the rules of evidence collection and explanation from 00 to 10:00 of the voting method.

2. And as acknowledged by the court below, although the above special general meeting was held during the working hours and used for interesting one hour remaining after holding the pro-con voting during the entire working hours of four hours, the above special general meeting was held for the vote of union members, which is essential requirements for industrial action under the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, and it was sufficiently enough for the company to prepare for it, and some union members were allowed to attend the general meeting due to the working conditions of the company in which they are engaged at night, it was necessary to call the general meeting during the shift working hours after the night work is completed, and exchange of opinions, etc. to determine whether to enter the industrial action or not, it cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that the above general meeting was held during the working hours, but it is difficult to view that the whole general meeting was held for more than four hours, and that the above special general meeting was held during the whole hours and excluded from it as an incidental act to the whole time during the general general meeting, not as an unlawful act during the whole hours during which it was held.

Therefore, it is proper for the court below to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the obstruction of business for the same reason, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legitimacy of trade union activities or the legal principles on the obstruction of business.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)