Reports on labor disputes not subject to mediation pursuant to the provisions of Chapters III, IV and V of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act and the purport of Article 6 (2) of the same Act.

In light of the fact that Article 16(2) of the former Trade Dispute Mediation Act (amended by Act No. 3967 of Nov. 28, 1987), the purport of Article 6(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act is deleted by the amendment of this Act, it shall not be deemed that the Labor Dispute Mediation Act has decided whether to accept a report of the occurrence of a labor dispute by an examination of the Labor Relations Commission in lieu of the legality review of the report by an administrative agency pursuant to the previous Act. Thus, in a case where a labor dispute occurs between labor and management, if a party to a labor dispute meets the appropriate requirements, the report is naturally effective as a matter of course, even if there is no separate measure by the administrative agency or the Labor Relations Commission, and it shall not be deemed that Article 6(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act allows the report of the occurrence of a labor dispute only if the contents of the labor dispute are subject to mediation

Article 16 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act; Article 16 of the former Trade Dispute Mediation Act (Amended by Act No. 3967, Nov. 28, 1987); Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act

Gangwon Industrial Trade Union

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Gangwon Industrial Company

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(Demand)

On October 26, 1989, the defendant confirmed that the decision of review on the application case for review against the plaintiff's labor dispute report made against the plaintiff is null and void.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

(Preliminary Claim)

The defendant's decision on October 26, 1989 that made the above retrial against the plaintiff is revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. In full view of the whole purport of arguments in evidence Nos. 1-2 (the review decision, evidence Nos. 5-2), evidence Nos. 2 (the same as evidence Nos. 4), evidence Nos. 3 (the same as evidence Nos. 4), and evidence Nos. 1-2 (collective agreement) of the Intervenor Company’s 1’s branch office, and the labor union No. 53(3) of the Gangwon Industrial Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor Company”), the Plaintiff was unable to make a decision on the amount of incentives (e.g., incentives and incentives) according to business performance after the settlement of accounts for the pertinent fiscal year, and that the Plaintiff’s report on the amount of collective bargaining under Article 53(3) of the collective agreement between the Intervenor Company and the Plaintiff’s labor-management labor-management labor-management labor-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management relations.

2. As to the defendant's assertion that the above decision is legitimate, the defendant's decision of this case, which held that the above decision of this case is legitimate, without any legal basis, is invalid because it has significant and obvious defects in the plaintiff's report of the occurrence of labor disputes. Thus, even if the above decision is not null and void as a matter of course, the above defect constitutes grounds for revocation of the above decision. Further, the above collective agreement provisions that determine the payment of incentives through labor-management consultation are not meaningful that the payment of incentives is not subject to collective bargaining consultation but subject to collective bargaining consultation, and the above decision of the defendant, which is based on the premise that the above collective agreement provisions are not subject to collective bargaining consultation, is unlawful, and thus, the defendant's decision is

Article 16 (1) of the Mediation of Labor Disputes Act provides that one of the parties to a labor dispute shall report to the Labor Relations Commission ex officio prior to the determination of the plaintiff's above assertion. Under the above Paragraph (1) of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, the administrative agency shall examine and determine legitimacy of the parties' requirements, collective bargaining, filing procedures, etc. within five days from the date on which the report is received, and if the result of the examination is deemed lawful, it shall be dismissed without delay. Thus, even if an administrative agency which received the report of labor dispute under the above provision of Article 16 (2) of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act provides that an administrative agency shall examine the legality of the report and determine whether to accept it, but the Act on the Mediation of Labor Disputes was amended by Act No. 3967, Nov. 28, 1987, and thus, if an administrative agency's report of labor dispute becomes legitimate, it shall not be deemed that the other party's report of labor dispute should be rejected by the Presidential Decree No. 1660, Apr. 15, 198.

3. If so, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as an illegal lawsuit without any interest in the lawsuit, and the lawsuit cost shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost the lawsuit as per the disposition.

Judges Kim So-ho (Presiding Judge) Lee Ho-ho