National Press Trade Union (Attorney Kim Young-deok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Broadcasting System (Law Firm, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Southern District Court Order 2010Kahap198 dated April 14, 2010

1. The debtor's appeal is dismissed;

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the debtor;

1. Purport of the creditor's request;

The Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kahap48 Decided March 10, 2010 shall authorize the above court's provisional disposition order issued on March 10, 2010 with respect to the case of application for collective bargaining abortion between the creditor and debtor.

2. Purport and purport of the debtor's request;

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The application for provisional disposition in this case shall be dismissed.

1. Decision on provisional disposition and decision of the first instance;

The creditor applied for a provisional disposition against the debtor as Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kahap48, the Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kahap48 on March 10, 2010. The above court rendered a provisional disposition ruling citing the creditor's application on March 10, 2010. The above court's objection defects in the above court 2010Kahap198, and the above court made the first instance decision authorizing the provisional disposition order of this case on April 14, 2010, it is clear in the record.

2. Facts supporting the relevant records;

A. The creditor is a nationwide industrial unit trade union, the establishment of which was reported on November 28, 200 by organizing workers in nationwide media industries and related businesses, and the debtor is a company with the purpose of conducting domestic and foreign broadcasts and disseminating broadcasting culture.

B. Around 1988, the debtor was established by the KBS Trade Union, a company-level trade union, and around May 200, the debtor made a structural change into the KBS headquarters of the creditor affiliated with an industrial unit trade union. The above KBS headquarters left from creditor around August 20, 2008 due to conflict with the creditor and re-a structural change into the KBS trade union, a company-level trade union.

C. On December 2, 2009, KBS trade union held a vote for and against union members on the agenda of the Non-Party president’s “the general strike business that retired from the Non-Party president” but rejected without obtaining the consent of a majority of all incumbent union members, the union members, who have different intent from the enforcement branch of the KBS trade union, began to join the creditor immediately after that date, and entered the creditor again on December 18, 2009, and the KBS branch affiliated with the creditor (hereinafter “instant headquarters”). On January 13, 2010, the KBS branch affiliated with the creditor (hereinafter “instant headquarters”). At present, about 3,522 members of the KBS trade union among the debtor’s employees, and about 546 members of the headquarters of this case join the headquarters of this case.

D. The headquarters of this case, which was delegated the right to collective bargaining by the creditor, requested the debtor to conduct collective bargaining several times from December 29, 2009 to conclude a collective agreement, but the debtor was already organized by the debtor based on the questioning reply from the Seoul Southern Site Office of Seoul Regional Labor Agency, and the headquarters of this case does not comply with the demand of the headquarters of this case for collective bargaining on the ground that the debtor constitutes multiple labor unions prohibited by the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”). Although the creditor requested the debtor to conduct collective bargaining on February 12, 2010, the debtor did not comply with the demand of the creditor for collective bargaining on the same ground.

E. Meanwhile, the organization targets of the KBS trade union and the headquarters of this case are employees working for the debtor, and the creditors have various sub-organizations such as the MBC headquarters, SBS headquarters, YTN branch, Han Han-gu newspaper branch in addition to the headquarters of this case.

3. The assertion and determination as to the right to be preserved

A. Judgment on the creditor's assertion

Article 29(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) provides that “the representative of a trade union shall have the authority to negotiate and conclude a collective agreement with an employer or an employers’ association for the trade union or union members.” Article 30(1) of the same Act provides that “the trade union and the employer or employers’ association shall faithfully negotiate and conclude a collective agreement with good faith and shall not abuse their authority.” Article 30(2) of the same Act provides that “the trade union and the employer or employers’ association shall not refuse or neglect the negotiation or conclusion of a collective agreement without good cause.” Thus, the trade union has the right to demand that the employer comply with the demand of the creditors for collective bargaining, unless there is good cause. Therefore, the obligor is obligated to conduct collective bargaining in good faith.

B. Determination of the debtor's assertion

(1) The assertion and determination relating to multiple labor union

The debtor asserts that the debtor is already organized by the KBS trade union, which is a company-level trade union, and the creditor or the headquarters of this case constitutes multiple labor unions which are prohibited by the Trade Union Act because the subject of organization overlaps with the KBS trade union or are the same as the subject of organization, and therefore, the debtor asserts that there is a justifiable reason to refuse collective bargaining against the creditor falling under multiple

From the time when the Trade Union Act was enacted by Act No. 5310 on March 13, 1997, Article 5 provides that "workers shall freely organize a trade union or join it." Article 5 (1) of the Addenda at the time of its establishment (which shall thereafter extend the time limit for prohibition of establishment. Article 5 (1) of the Addenda as amended by Act No. 9930 on January 1, 2010. Article 7 (1) of the Addenda provides that "where a trade union is organized in one business or workplace, it shall be extended to June 30, 201." Article 5 of the Addenda of the Trade Union Act provides that "If it is established in one business or workplace, it shall not be deemed that the existing trade union is established as an independent trade union or its branch of an industrial trade union with the capacity of 10 independent business or its branch of an industrial trade union with only one business or its branch of an industrial trade union with the capacity of 10 independent business or its branch of an industrial trade union."

In light of the above legal principles, first of all, regarding whether a creditor constitutes multiple labor unions in relation to the KBS trade union, against the debtor's company-level trade union that is organized by the debtor's employees, the creditor is a primary industrial unit trade union that is organized by nationwide media industry and related business workers, etc., as seen earlier. Thus, the creditor does not constitute multiple labor unions prohibited by Article 5 (1) of the Addenda in relation to the KBS trade union.

Next, as to whether the headquarters of this case constitutes multiple labor unions in relation to the KBS trade unions, each of the above headquarters and the KBS trade unions is a worker working for the debtor, and according to the records, the headquarters of this case has its own operating regulations. The headquarters of this case has the same organization as the general assembly composed of all the union members, the council of representatives elected autonomously, and the head of the headquarters that has the same organization and executive organs as the chairperson. However, the following circumstances revealed by the records, namely, Articles 42 and 43 of the rules of creditors are the creditors, and the head of the headquarters, sub-chapter and sub-chapter are not entitled to conduct collective bargaining or conclude collective agreements with the chairperson only if it is delegated with the authority of the chairperson to conclude collective bargaining or to conclude collective agreements with the same authority as the above headquarters, and the creditors of this case may independently request the debtor to conclude collective bargaining agreements with the same authority as the amended rules of creditors of this case.

Therefore, the above argument of the debtor is without merit.

Do Governor's argument and judgment relating to the simplification of negotiation windows

Next, the debtor asserts that Article 7 (1) of the Addenda to the Trade Union Act (Act No. 9930, Jan. 1, 2010) permits multiple labor unions from July 1, 201, and Article 29-2 of the Trade Union Act provides for the simplification of bargaining windows, such as the establishment of a representative bargaining trade union in cases where multiple labor unions cannot autonomously establish a representative bargaining trade union. Even if multiple labor unions after July 1, 201, allow multiple labor unions, the debtor is sufficient to conduct collective bargaining against the KBS trade union that is composed of a majority of all union members. If the debtor under the current Trade Union Act which prohibits multiple labor unions imposes a duty to respond to collective bargaining on creditors under the current Trade Union Act which prohibits multiple labor unions, the current Trade Union Act which prohibits multiple labor unions imposes a duty to negotiate more than a majority of union members after July 1, 2011, which is a debtor, and that there is a reason to refuse the demand of multiple labor unions to interpret the above Article 5 (1) of the Addenda of the Trade Union Act.

The main text of Article 29-2(1) of the Trade Union Act, amended by Act No. 9930, Jan. 1, 2010, effective from July 1, 2011, provides that "if there are not less than two trade unions which have established or joined one business or workplace without any structural relation, a trade union shall determine a representative bargaining trade union and request bargaining." However, under the current trade union Act, where the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows are not prepared as before the enforcement of the above amended Trade Union Act, even if the subordinate organization of an industrial unit trade union and the target of the organization of a unit trade union of an enterprise, even if the subordinate organization of an industrial unit trade union do not correspond to the multiple trade union prohibited establishment under Article 5(1) of the above Addenda, the employer is bound to conduct collective bargaining with respect to both the industrial unit trade union and the company-level trade union, so the above assertion by the obligor is without merit.

• Judgment concerning the General Binding Force of the Agreement

In addition, the debtor concluded a collective agreement with the KS trade union in which a majority of the members of the company have already joined, and this collective agreement applies to other workers of the debtor who are not members of the KS trade union pursuant to Article 35 of the Trade Union Act on the general binding force of the collective agreement. Thus, the creditor who is the industrial unit trade union cannot be deemed to have the authority to conclude the collective agreement separately. Thus, the debtor asserts that there is a justifiable reason to refuse the creditor'

However, each trade union shall be guaranteed the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective agreement pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Constitution. Thus, even if a collective agreement exists in which a company-level trade union independently concluded by exercising the right to collective bargaining, it cannot be said that, under such circumstances, the right to negotiate with a company-level trade union or the right to conclude a collective agreement with an industrial unit trade union, which does not participate in the conclusion of the collective agreement, is restricted. Therefore, the obligor cannot refuse the obligee’s demand for collective bargaining on the grounds as above regarding the validity scope of collective agreement, and therefore, the obligor’s assertion is without merit.

x) argument and judgment regarding individual negotiations of unions by mountain;

In other words, the debtor asserts that even if a company-level trade union and an industrial unit trade union exist concurrently, a creditor who corresponds to an industrial unit trade union does not have the right to demand individual collective bargaining with respect to the debtor's own matters of the debtor's workplace.

In light of the above legal principles, since an industrial unit trade union’s collective bargaining for the purpose of concluding a collective agreement with an individual employer for the sake of its members, a creditor, who is an industrial unit trade union, is not entitled to directly demand an individual collective bargaining against an individual employer (see Supreme Court Decision 72Nu122, Jun. 26, 1973). Therefore, the above assertion by the debtor is without merit.

(v)the violation of procedures and the illegality of the objectives;

The debtor asserts that the creditor's demand for collective bargaining against the debtor of the headquarters of this case is unlawful since the creditor's demand for collective bargaining against the debtor of this case was not in compliance with this procedure, and that the creditor or the headquarters of this case is merely seeking a strike against the current regime, such as the invalidity of appointment of the non-party, who is a new president of the debtor, and thus, the demand for collective bargaining of this case is illegal since the legitimacy of its purpose is not recognized, and the debtor does not have any obligation to comply with it.

In this case, as seen earlier, the parties demanding collective bargaining against the debtor only are creditors and not the headquarters of this case. As such, this part of the debtor's assertion on the grounds of violating the procedure for the establishment of the headquarters of this case and the delegation of collective bargaining rights is without merit, and as to the fact that the creditor or the headquarters of this case requires collective bargaining solely for political purposes, it is insufficient to vindicate it only by the materials submitted by the debtor, and there is no other evidence to vindicate it. Thus, this part of the debtor's assertion is without merit.

⑹ 신의칙 위반 관련 주장 및 판단

Finally, the debtor is a person who objects to the enforcement department of the KBS trade union, and the members who established the headquarters of this case and joined the headquarters of this case, and even if they received sufficient procedural rights in the election constituting the enforcement department of the KBS trade union, the KBS trade union, which was one of them, joined the headquarters of this case, which is the creditor of the industrial unit trade union, in violation of the resolution to withdraw from the industrial unit trade union. Thus, although the above circumstance concerning the union members, it cannot be deemed as a justifiable reason for the debtor to refuse collective bargaining against the creditor. Therefore, the debtor's above assertion is without merit.

4. Determination on the necessity of preservation

Since the right to collective bargaining is not only a meaning as an objective value order, but also a private legal right realized by judicial procedures, each trade union should guarantee its own right to collective bargaining and its own right to collective bargaining in cases where there exist concurrently a company-level trade union and an industrial unit trade union. Although one union requested collective bargaining but the employer did not recognize it, the union members belonging to one union lose the opportunity to see benefits from the collective bargaining and the conclusion of collective agreements, and accordingly, the union members of one union lose the opportunity to see economic disadvantage for a long time. Accordingly, collective bargaining should be carried out immediately, since the existence of a trade union is lost due to the need and weakening of one union’s organization, as seen earlier, and as long as the obligor refuses collective bargaining with the obligee without justifiable grounds, the application for provisional disposition of this case is also recognized.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the creditor's application for provisional disposition of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the decision of the court of first instance shall be just and the debtor's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Clerks (Presiding Judge)