The scope of the application of the proviso to Article 3 of the Addenda to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act ( January 1, 2010)

Article 24(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) prohibits full-time officers of a trade union by providing that “any person who works for the affairs of the trade union shall not receive wages from the employer during the previous period.” However, the above provision was postponed but Article 8 of the Addenda of the Trade Union Act (amended by Act No. 930, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that “Article 24(2) shall not apply until June 30, 2010.” Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Addenda of the amended Trade Union Act (amended by Act No. 1068, Jul. 1, 2010) provides that the term of validity of the collective agreement shall be deemed as valid until the expiration of the term of validity of the provision of Article 24(2) of the Act, even if all or part of the collective agreement violates Article 24, the term of validity shall be deemed as valid until the expiration of the term of validity of the provision of the Act.”

Article 24 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and Articles 3 and 8 of the Addenda of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act ( January 1, 2010)

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Pacific Paz. (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Choi Su-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Na1860 decided July 12, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 24(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) prohibits a full-time officer from paying wages on the ground that “the full-time officer who only works for a trade union shall not receive any benefits from the employer during the full-time period.” However, Article 24(2) of the Addenda of the Trade Union Act (amended by Act No. 9930, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Trade Union Act”) provides that “Article 24(2) shall not apply until June 30, 2010,” which is applied from July 1, 2010.

Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Trade Union Act provides that "any collective agreement in force as at the time this Act enters into force shall be deemed to have been concluded in accordance with this Act: Provided, That if all or part of the collective agreement violates Article 24 due to the enforcement of this Act, it shall be deemed to have been effective until the time the relevant collective agreement enters into force, notwithstanding the enforcement of this Act." This provision aims to minimize disadvantages and confusions arising from the application of Article 24 (2) by recognizing the validity of the collective agreement even if the collective agreement is in violation of Article 24 (2) which provides for prohibition of payment of wages to full-time officers of a trade union under the amended Trade Union Act.

Therefore, if a collective agreement which determined the payment of wages to full-time officers of a labor union as of July 1, 2010, which is the date of application of Article 24(2) of the Trade Union Act, exists, it shall be deemed effective until the effective period under the proviso of Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Trade Union Act. Furthermore, even if the effective period expires before July 1, 2010, but the automatic renewal clause as provided in the collective agreement is renewed in accordance with the automatic renewal clause as of July 1, 2010 and it is effective until the renewed term expires.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the wage provision for full-time officers of the union of this case and the paid provision for union activities of this case are valid until February 11, 201, which is the renewed effective term, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 24(2) and (4) of the Trade Union Act and Articles 3 and 8 of the Addenda of the amended Trade Union Act, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the content related to the full-time officer of the instant collective agreement could not be deemed changed solely on the ground that the instant trade union returned Plaintiff 2, who was an exclusive officer, to the work site on July 18, 2010 according to the Defendant’s official document.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 24 of the Trade Union Act as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, 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 Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)