Whether it is practically an industrial action in a case where a majority of the union members with the intention to withdraw measures such as reduction of overtime allowances, etc., were allowed to take a monthly leave of absence on a daily basis despite the employer’s rejection of the employer’s application (affirmative)

If the executive officers of a trade union have 181 workers from among the 307 union members with the intent to reduce overtime allowances and withdraw the food exchange measures within the solar period, and have 181 workers from among the 307 union members apply for monthly leave in group on the part of the employer before a day before the day on the grounds of interference with the performance of their duties, but if the monthly leave is given on a daily basis, the collective monthly leave was to exercise the right to monthly leave formally, even though the collective monthly leave was to exercise the right to monthly leave, the collective monthly leave was aimed at accomplishing their arguments by engaging in acts that interfere with the normal operation of the employer's work, and thus, it should be deemed an industrial action practically.

Article 3 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, Article 47 of the Labor Standards 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)

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Daegu District Court Decision 91No676 delivered on August 23, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the defendants are the heads of the regional medical insurance trade unions, the secretary general, the head of the investigation statistics, and the head of the Jung-gu branch, and the defendant committed the crime of this case against the reduction of overtime allowances and the reduction of food substitution measures within the strike period from November 3, 1989 to December 27, 1989, and without the consent of a majority of the union members directly, secret, and by secret ballot, 181 members belonging to five old-gu medical insurance associations in the above area from May 23, 1990, among the total 307 members of the union, 307 members of the union, 181 members of the above area were allowed to conduct the monthly leave on a daily basis, and the defendants applied for the monthly leave in group to the employer before the day of this case, but they did not comply with the application even though they rejected the application. In light of the records, the court below's findings of facts are not acceptable.

2. The "industrial action" under the Trade Dispute Mediation Act refers to activities conducted by or against the parties to a labor union, such as union strike, union strike, lock-out, lock-out, and other activities to accomplish their claims, which interfere with the normal operation of the business (Article 3 of the same Act). If the facts are the same, the collective monthly leave of this case led by the defendants was to exercise their right of monthly leave formally, even though it was intended to exercise their right of monthly leave, it shall be deemed to be an industrial action actually conducted for the purpose of accomplishing their claims by engaging in the conduct impeding the normal operation of the above medical insurance association's business, and therefore, it shall not be deemed to be a violation of Article 12 (1) of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act. Therefore, a trade union's industrial action shall not be decided by the direct, secret, and secret ballot.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below based on the above opinion is just, and there is no reason to dispute from the opposite position, and all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)