[1] In the absence of a trade union, the method of the worker's consent required to revise the existing working conditions under the rules of employment more disadvantageous than the previous one, and the meaning of "the employer's intervention or interference" as its passive requirement

[2] Whether the previous rules of employment are applied as it is to workers who were succeeded to by a comprehensive succession of employment (affirmative)

[3] In a case where an explanatory meeting is held by each department, each place of business, and each branch to explain the general succession of the relevant business and the changes in the payment rate of retirement allowances, and the employees’ consent is obtained, the case holding that the employees’ consent was obtained by the collective decision-making method on the ground that the employer’s unfair intervention or interference was merely a mere explanation and publicity of the changes in the employer’s terms and conditions to the employees, and

[4] In a case where the rules of employment were prepared and revised disadvantageous to workers without workers' consent by collective decision-making method but are recognized as reasonable by social norms, whether such rules of employment can be applied (affirmative), and the criteria for determining the reasonableness by social norms

[1] Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act/ [2] Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act/ [3] Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act/ [4] Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act

[1] [4] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23185, 23192 (Gong2004Sang, 976) decided May 14, 2004 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da18322 decided Nov. 14, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2322) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da54909 decided Mar. 11, 2005 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da41659 decided Dec. 26, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 517) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 99Da70846 decided Jan. 5, 2001; Supreme Court Decision 2004Da264972 decided Jun. 27, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2004Da721674 decided Nov. 26, 2004)

Plaintiff 1 and 16 others (Attorney Kim Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Korea Marine Pollution Prevention and Removal Association (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na13236, 13243 decided April 3, 2009

All the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Whether the consent of workers was obtained by the comprehensive succession of July 31, 1998 and by the collective decision-making method of December 31, 1999 at the time of revision of the Rules on Remuneration of Workers as of December 31, 1999; and

In order for an employer to amend the existing working conditions to be disadvantageous to a worker due to the amendment of the rules of employment, consent is required of the worker under the previous working conditions or the method of collective decision-making of the worker who was subject to the rules of employment. Any amendment to the working conditions or the rules of employment without such consent is null and void, and the consent of the labor union is required if there is no such labor union, and if there is no such labor union, the consent is required of a majority of the workers by the method of a meeting. The consent by the meeting method is allowed not only by the former worker but also by the exchange of opinions between the workers under the condition that the intervention or interference of the employer is excluded by the organization or unit of a business or a workplace. Here, the employer’s intervention or interference means that the employer compels the employer to give express or implied consent to the extent that it interferes with the employee’s autonomous and collective decision-making, and the employer’s explanation and publicity of the modified working conditions or the contents of the rules of employment to the workers, it cannot be said that there was unfair interference or interference between the employer (see, 200.4.214.25.214.

On the other hand, in a case where the employment relationship is comprehensively succeeded, an employee shall also maintain the same employment relationship as that of the previous employment relationship. In order for the employer to unilaterally amend the employment rules or apply the rules of employment of a corporation which has succeeded to unfavorablely than the previous employment relationship, there must be circumstances such as consent by collective decision-making method of the employee group that has maintained the previous employment status. Unless such consent is given, the employer may unilaterally change the previous employment conditions or apply the rules of employment of a corporation which has succeeded to unfavorablely than the previous employment conditions. In this case, the previous employment rules apply as they are to the workers who are employed in the succeeded corporation without maintaining the previous employment conditions (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da41659 delivered on December

원심판결 이유와 기록에 의하면, ① 한국해양오염방제조합(이하 ‘방제조합’이라 한다)은 구 해양오염방지법(2007. 1. 19. 해양환경관리법 제정으로 폐지되기 전의 것)에 의하여 해양에 배출된 기름 등 폐기물에 대한 효율적인 방제와 방제에 관한 교육·훈련 및 기술개발을 통하여 방제능력을 향상시킴으로써 해양환경을 보전하기 위하여 설립된 법인으로서, 그 운영 및 사업에 소요되는 자금은 정부로부터의 지원금 등을 재원으로 조성하고, 사업계획과 예산운영계획 및 결산서를 매년 해양수산부장관에게 제출하여야 하는 사실, ② 방제조합은 이른바 IMF 금융위기사태를 맞아 공기업 경영혁신의 일환으로 1998. 1.경부터 1999. 9.경까지 수회에 걸쳐 해양수산부에 경영혁신추진계획을 제출하였는데, 그 내용 중에 관련 사업의 통폐합, 정년 단축 및 퇴직금지급률 조정 등이 포함되어 있는 사실, ③ 방제조합은 해양수산부의「한국컨테이너부두공단 예선사업 한국해양오염방제조합 이관」방침에 따라 한국컨테이너부두공단(이하 ‘부두공단’이라 한다) 예선사업을 1998. 7. 31.자로 포괄승계하였는데, 당시 방제조합은 예선사업에 종사하는 종업원을 전원 인수하고 인수한 종업원에게 퇴직금 지급규정을 적용함에 있어 종전 부두공단의 사업장에서 근무하던 근속년수를 통산하여 적용하기로 한 사실, ④ 1998. 7. 31.자 예선사업 포괄승계 당시 부두공단의 취업규칙에는 직원의 정년에 관하여 일반직 2급 이상은 61세, 일반직 3급 이하 및 기능직은 59세로 규정되어 있었고, 방제조합의 인사규정에는 직원의 정년에 관하여 관리직(일반직) 2급 이상은 61세, 그 밖의 사람은 58세로 규정되어 있었던 사실, ⑤ 위 포괄승계 당시 부두공단의 직원이었던 소외 1 과장과 소외 2 부장은 포괄승계에 따른 근로조건, 급여, 직급 변경을 설명하기 위하여 1998. 8. 11.부터 같은 달 14.까지 예선사업 각 사업소·지부를 방문하여 직원들에게 근로조건의 차이, 직급조정 등을 설명한 사실, ⑥ 그 후 예선사업 각 사업소·지부 직원 총 187명 중 186명이 ‘공단의 기존 제규정을 대신하여 조합의 인사규정, 보수규정, 퇴직금규정 등 조합 소정의 규정에 의한 근로조건에 따르겠다’는 취지의 각서를 1998. 8. 1.자로 소급 작성하여 방제조합에 제출한 사실, ⑦ 한편, 해양수산부는 1999. 1.경 방제조합에 공공기관 퇴직금제도 개선방안을 통보하였고, 이에 따라 방제조합은 1999. 4. 21.경 퇴직금제도 개선방안에 관하여 부서장회의를 거치는 등으로 퇴직금제도를 종전의 누진제에서 단수제로 변경하는 내용의 보수규정 개정안을 마련하였으며, 1999. 7.경 당시 방제조합 기획과장이던 소외 1 과장이 기중기 선단과 몇 개 지부를 방문하여 위 보수규정 개정에 관한 설명회를 개최하였고, 그 무렵 방제조합 각 부서·사업소·지부 단위로 직원 약 330명이 ‘본인은 국내 경제의 어려움을 극복하기 위한 노력의 일환으로 추진하고 있는 근로조건의 개정(퇴직금지급에 관한 기준 등 : 별첨 참조)에 대하여 본인의 자유의사로써 동의서를 제출합니다. 아울러 추후 위와 관련하여 어떠한 이의제기도 하지 않을 것을 서약합니다’라는 내용의 “임·직원 보수규정개정 관련 동의서”에 서명하였는데, 위 동의서에는 직원보수규정 신·구조문 대비표가 ‘별첨2’로 첨부되어 있고, 위 ‘별첨2’에는 기존의 누진율에 의한 퇴직금지급률을 ‘근속 1년에 대하여 근로기준법에서 정한 1개월분의 평균임금을 퇴직금으로 지급한다’고 적시되어 있는 사실, ⑧ 방제조합은 1999. 12. 29. 운영위원회에서 퇴직금 누진제를 단수제로 변경하는 보수규정 개정을 의결하였는데, 이에 의하면, ‘퇴직금은 1년 이상 근속한 직원에게 지급하며, 근속 1년에 대하여 근로기준법에서 정한 1개월분의 평균임금을 퇴직금으로 지급하고, 이 규정 시행 당시 재직중인 직원에 대하여 1999. 12. 31.까지의 퇴직금을 일괄 정산하여 지급하되, 2000. 1. 1.부터 발생된 퇴직금은 새로이 개정된 규정을 적용한다’고 되어 있는 사실, ⑨ 방제조합은 1999. 12. 31. 본부 각 팀(실)과 10개 지부장에게 위 보수규정 개정에 관한 동의서 확보를 요청하는 공문을 발송하였고, 그에 따라 본부 각 팀(실)별, 각 지부별로 “임·직원 보수규정 개정 및 퇴직금 일괄정산실시”라는 제목의 용지의 ‘가(가), 부(불)’란에 소속 근로자들의 서명을 받는 방법으로 동의서를 받았으며, 당시 직원 총 365명 중 361명이 ‘가’란에 서명하고 4명이 ‘부’란에 서명한 사실, ⑩ 그 후 근로자들 전원에 대하여 1999. 12. 31.까지의 근속기간에 대하여 퇴직금 중간정산이 실시된 사실, ⑪ 원고 1 등 12인은 부두공단 소속 근로자였다가 예선사업이 방제조합으로 포괄승계됨에 따라 1998. 7. 31.자로 방제조합 소속 근로자가 되었고, 원고 원고 11 등 5인은 처음부터 방제조합에 입사한 근로자들이었는데, 앞서 본 각서 및 동의서에 모두 동의하는 취지로 서명한 사실을 알 수 있다.

In light of the above facts, the government-led restructuring of public enterprises was conducted due to the following circumstances, i.e., the IMF crisis. Since the consolidation, reduction of retirement age, and adjustment of the payment rate of retirement allowances at the time of reorganization of public enterprises, it appears that the Plaintiffs were all informed of all of the comprehensive succession of business and pollution response association. The tugboat business or pollution response association's affairs were difficult to gather in one place because the businesses or branches are small industrial accident across the nation's coast. Accordingly, an explanatory meeting for each department, place of business, and branch office was held to explain the change of the working conditions according to comprehensive succession as of July 31, 1998 and the change of the payment rate of the worker on December 31, 1999, and the employees were given an opportunity to exchange their opinions by attending an explanatory meeting for each department, place of business, and branch office, and the employees, including the Plaintiffs, were not required to modify the retirement allowance payment rate by 197 employees and their respective comprehensive succession from the standpoint of 198 employees' consent.

However, the court below, on the contrary of the above opinion, held that in the situation where the intervention or interference of the employer was excluded at the time of the above modification, it cannot be deemed that the consent was obtained in the way of gathering opinions from workers by exchanging opinions between workers and gathering them, and that the consent was not obtained, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the consent by the collective decision making method of workers and failing to exhaust all necessary

2. Whether the amendment of personnel regulations of December 31, 1998 is reasonable by social norms;

In principle, it is not permissible for an employer to unilaterally impose working conditions by depriving workers of their rights or interests through the preparation and revision of new rules of employment. However, even if the preparation or revision of the rules of employment in question takes into account the necessity and content of the necessity and content thereof, in a case where it is deemed reasonable under the generally accepted social norms to the extent that the legal norm of the pertinent provision is acceptable, its application may not be denied solely on the ground that there is no consent by the collective decision-making method of the workers under the application of the previous rules of employment or the rules of employment. Here, the existence of rationality under the generally accepted social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the improvement of other conditions of employment, including the degree of disadvantage suffered by the workers due to the revision of the rules of employment, the necessity and degree of the employer’s modification, the reasonableness of the contents of the rules of employment after the amendment, the measures subject to the rules of employment, etc., the developments leading to negotiations with the trade unions or other workers, response to the same kind of situation at the time of the amendment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da5362.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is justified that the court below's decision that the amendment of personnel regulations on December 31, 1998 to the personnel management regulations on December 31, 199 is unreasonable by social norms is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, all the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)