[1] Meaning of "worker of the same kind" under Article 35 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and whether a person who is not a member of the union can be deemed as a worker of the same kind who is expected to be subject to the collective agreement (negative)

[2] The meaning of the rules of employment under Article 96 of the Labor Standards Act and the requirements for the newly established or amended rules of employment to become effective

[3] The case holding that the self-help plan for the employee's change of working conditions is effective as the revised rules of employment

[1] Article 35 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that a collective agreement shall apply to workers of the same kind who are employed in a business or workplace in question when the number of workers of the same kind who are ordinarily employed in a business or workplace is subject to one collective agreement. Accordingly, the term "worker of the same kind" refers to a person who is expected to be subject to the collective agreement pursuant to the provisions of the collective agreement in question, and on the other hand, a person who is not qualified as a union member pursuant to the provisions of the collective agreement in question cannot be said to be expected to be subject to the collective agreement

[2] The rules of employment under Article 96 of the Labor Standards Act refers to the provision of the working conditions that an employer applies to all workers engaged in the pertinent business, such as the worker's service discipline and wages, and it does not go to its name. Meanwhile, the rules of employment are not effective even if the employer prescribed the provisions to establish or revise the rules of employment because the rules of employment are within the business prescribed by the employer, and it does not necessarily mean that the new rules of employment are effective. In order to realize the effects of the newly established or amended rules of employment, it is not necessary to follow the methods stipulated in Article 13 (1) of the same Act. However, at least as a procedure corresponding to the promulgation of the statutes, it is necessary to inform the general public of the fact that it is a new rules of employment, namely,

[3] The case holding that the above revised rules of employment became effective even if the self-help plan, the employees’ change of the working conditions, regardless of its name, constitutes the rules of employment, and the contents of the self-rescue plan are known to all employees through public relations media in the company, and the majority of the company employees agreed to the above revision of the rules of employment, if the company did not go through the amendment procedure of the rules of employment, or did not perform the duty to report, post, and keep

[1] Article 35 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [2] Articles 13(1), 96, and 97 of the Labor Standards Act / [3] Article 13(1) of the Labor Standards Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da39618 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 505), Supreme Court Decision 95Da4056 delivered on April 25, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 155), Supreme Court Decision 96Da13415 delivered on October 28, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3620), Supreme Court Decision 99Du6927 delivered on December 10, 199 (Gong200Sang, 200Da23611 delivered on June 27, 200), Supreme Court Decision 9Da39819 delivered on December 28, 199 (Gong194, 197; Supreme Court Decision 200Da398319 delivered on April 19, 197)

Plaintiff 1 and 36 others (Law Firm Busan National Law Office, Attorney Dog-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dao Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Barun, Attorney Jeong Ho-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2000Na11034 delivered on September 5, 2001

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal.

A. The judgment of the court below

원심은 그 채용 증거를 종합하여, 피고(변경 전 상호 기아중공업 주식회사)의 1996. 8. 16.자 단체협약 제43조에는 "상여금은 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12월 말에 각 100%씩 연 700%를 지급하고, 설날ㆍ추석에는 각 500,000원, 하기휴가 때는 300,000원을 지급한다."라고 규정되어 있고, 그 유효기간은 1996. 4. 1.(소급적용)부터 1998. 3. 31.까지로 되어 있는 사실, 피고의 대주주인 기아자동차 주식회사와 그 계열사들이 1997. 7. 15. 부도유예협약 적용업체로 지정됨에 따라 회사를 살리기 위한 자구노력을 벌이게 되자 각 계열사들의 노동조합들도 상호 연락 및 협의하에 이에 동참하게 되었는바, 피고의 생산직 근로자 과반수 이상으로 조직된 피고 소속 노동조합(이하 '피고 노조'라고만 한다)은 1997. 7. 24. 피고로부터 그룹의 경영혁신기획단에서 제출한 자구계획서에 대하여 채권은행단에서 97년 임금동결, 회사가 정상화 될 때까지 임금의 10% 및 상여금 반납, 하기휴가비 및 월차수당 반납, 단체협약 복지부분의 실시 유보에 대하여 노사합의를 해달라는 요청이 있으니 협조하여 달라는 공문을 받고, 1997. 7. 25. 임시대의원 대회를 개최하여, 1997년 임금동결, 1997년 상여금을 정상화까지 반납(금년까지 갈 경우 → 450%), 단체협약에 토대를 둔 복지부분의 시행유보 등을 결의하고, 다만 그 결의내용은 피고가 매각되거나 제3자에게 인수되면 무효임을 전제로 한 것임을 명시한 상여금, 휴가비 반납 및 노동조합 자구방안 통보서를 피고의 대표이사에게 통지(피고가 추진중인 자구계획의 내용에 따른 협조요청에 대하여 피고 노조가 위 결의사항을 통보함으로써 노사간의 상여금 반납에 관한 의사의 합치가 있었다고 볼 것이다.)하였으며, 그 후 노사협의회의 책임자들이 회의를 열어 이를 확인한 사실, 피고와 피고 노조는 1997. 7. 29. 회사의 경영이 정상화될 때까지 적어도 3년간은 무분규 사업장을 만들 것에 앞장서고, 뼈를 깎는 아픔으로 경영정상화에 임하고자 단체협약은 노사화합과 기강확립의 방향으로 재정립하고, 인력의 합리적 운영을 위한 인사조정에 대하여는 적극 협력한다는 등의 내용을 채택하면서 위 상여금 반납 등의 통보내용을 확인하는 노사공동결의(이하 위와 같은 의사의 합치를 확인하는 위 노사공동결의를 '이 사건 약정'이라 한다)를 하는 한편, 제3자 인수, 합병을 절대 용납할 수 없고 제3자 인수, 합병시는 전면 무효화한다고 명시한 사실, 한편 피고 노조위원장은 1997. 8. 4. 다시 회사재건을 위한 자구계획에 대한 동의서를 그 명의로 작성하여 피고를 통하여 채권은행단에 전달하였는바, 그 내용은, 상여금ㆍ휴가비 및 휴가의 반납, 임금동결, 복지성 비용의 집행중지 등이었고, 다만 제3자 인수시 또는 현 최고경영진의 변경시는 무효로 한다고 명시한 사실, 원고들은 원심 별지 체불금품내역의 각 입사일란 기재 입사일에 피고에 입사하여 1997. 9. 1.부터 1998. 12. 31.까지 사이의 각 사직일란 기재 사직일에 퇴직할 때까지 피고 회사에서 근무하였던 근로자들로서, 1997. 8. 1.부터 1998. 12. 31.까지의 기간 동안 원심 별지 체불금품내역의 미수령 합계란 기재 상여금ㆍ휴가비 등을 지급받지 못한 사실, 피고와 피고 노조는 1999. 1. 8. 단체협약을 개정하면서 상여금에 관한 1996. 8. 16.자 단체협약 제43조를 그대로 유지하되, 단 1998년도 상여금은 1998. 4. 1.을 기준으로 그 이후에 대하여만 300%(1998. 7.경에 당시 재직중인 사원에 대하여 생계보조비로 임금가불형식으로 지급한 500,000원을 포함)를 지급하기로 규정하였고, 그 유효기간을 1998. 4. 1.부터 2000. 3. 31.까지로 정하였으며 이에 따라 피고는 원고들 중 1998. 4. 1. 이후에 퇴직한 사람들에게도 1999. 1. 8.자 단체협약을 적용하여 상여금 300%를 퇴직일까지의 근로일수에 따라 일할 계산하여 지급한 사실을 인정한 다음, 원고들이 1997. 8. 1. 이후 그들이 사직할 때까지의 위 1996. 8. 16.자 단체협약에 정한 상여금·휴가비 등을 제대로 지급받지 못하였는데, 이 사건 약정은 노조원이 아닌 일반직 사원에게는 그 효력이 미칠 수 없고, 가사 위 약정의 효력이 있다고 하더라도 그 반납의 범위는 1997년 상여금 등에 한하는 것이라고 주장하면서, 1998. 3. 31.까지 퇴직한 원고들은 상여금 등 전액을, 1998. 4. 1. 이후에 퇴직한 원고들은 위 1999. 1. 8.자 단체협약에 의하여 지급된 금액을 뺀 나머지의 상여금 등의 지급을 구함에 대하여, 피고는 원고들 주장의 상여금·휴가비 등은 이 사건 약정에 따라 포기되었으므로 그 지급의무가 없다고 주장하는 이 사건에 있어서, 앞에서 본 사실관계에 의하면 위 단체협약상의 상여금지급규정은 이 사건 약정의 내용에 따라 적법하게 변경되었다고 할 것이라고 전제한 다음, 노동조합및노동관계조정법 제35조 는 하나의 사업 또는 사업장에 상시 사용되는 동종의 근로자 반수 이상이 하나의 단체협약의 적용을 받게 된 때에는 당해 사업 또는 사업장에 사용되는 다른 동종의 근로자에 대하여도 단체협약이 적용된다고 규정하고 있으므로, 피고의 일반직 사원들이 피고 노조의 조합원이 아니라 하더라도 피고의 근로자 과반수로 조직된 피고 노조의 조합원들과 동종의 근로자에 해당한다면 이 사건 약정이 일반직 사원에게도 적용된다고 할 것이고, 위 법이 정하는 동종의 근로자라 함은 당해 단체협약의 규정에 의하여 그 협약의 적용이 예상되는 자를 가리킨다고 할 것인데, 원고들 중 23 내지 37(원심판결의 36 내지 50임) 원고들은 피고의 일반직 사원으로서 위 1996. 8. 16.자 단체협약 제1조, 제2조, 제3조, 제5조의 규정 취지와 피고의 인사규정집에 일반직 사원에게 적용되는 임금지급규정을 달리 두고 있는 사실 등에 비추어보면, 피고의 단체협약에 의하여 피고 노조의 조합원으로 가입할 수가 없어 피고의 단체협약이나 그 변경된 협약인 이 사건 약정의 적용을 받는 동종의 근로자라고 할 수 없고, 나아가 피고가 이 사건 약정에 따라 근로기준법 제96조 소정의 기재사항을 변경하여 일반직 사원에 대한 규칙을 개정하였다고 볼 자료도 없고, 일반직 사원들은 당초부터 이 사건 약정의 적용대상이 아니므로, 피고의 일반직 사원인 원고들 중 23 내지 37(원심판결의 36 내지 50) 원고들에 대한 상여금 포기의 주장은 이유 없고, 따라서 피고는 위 원고들에게 이 사건 약정에 관계없이 1997년도분 상여금과 1998년도분 상여금을 지급할 의무가 있다고 판단하는 한편, 앞에서 본 바와 같이, 피고 노조가 피고의 노사합의 협조요청 공문을 받고 임시대의원 대회를 개최하여 1997년 임금동결, 1997년 상여금을 정상화까지 반납(금년까지 갈 경우 → 450%)하기로 결의하고 이를 피고에게 통보한 것이니 이 사건 약정은 생산직 원고들인 1 내지 22(원심판결의 14 내지 35) 원고들과 피고 사이에서 1997년도 상여금에 한하여 효력이 있다고 할 것이고 따라서 피고는 위 원고들에게 1998년도분 상여금을 지급할 의무가 있다고 판단하였다.

B. Judgment on ground of appeal No. 1

(1) Whether the general binding power of a collective agreement is recognized

Article 35 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that a collective agreement shall apply to other workers of the same kind who are employed in the same business or workplace when the number of workers of the same kind who are ordinarily employed in the same business or workplace is subject to one collective agreement. Accordingly, the term "worker of the same kind of workplace subject to the collective agreement" refers to a person who is expected to be subject to the agreement under the provisions of the collective agreement concerned, and on the other hand, a person who is not a member of the union under the provisions of the collective agreement such as the collective agreement is not expected to be subject to the application of the collective agreement, and therefore cannot be deemed as a worker of the same kind of workplace with the general binding force of the collective agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da13415, Oct. 28, 1997; 200

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, at the time of July 1997, the defendant company was a trade union member of 1,532 and there was a trade union consisting of more than half of 863 non-members. However, at the time of the above labor-management joint resolution, Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the collective agreement between the defendant company and the defendant union provides that members in general service shall be excluded from the scope of union members, and Articles 7 and 9 of the collective agreement of the defendant union also provide that the persons provided for in Article 5 of the above collective agreement shall be excluded from union members. In light of this, the above 23 through 37 of the collective agreement of the defendant company, who are general employees, cannot be deemed as a same kind of worker with the general binding force of the collective agreement of the defendant company because they are not qualified as union members under the collective agreement of the defendant company, and some of the regulations as seen above

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case since there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the general binding power of a collective agreement, and Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13189 delivered on December 22, 192, which is alleged in the ground of appeal, different from this case.

(2) Whether the revision to the rules of employment is effective

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant's employment rules, which set forth bonus payment to the plaintiffs in general service 23 through 37 as measures related to the labor-management joint resolution and a series of related measures on July 29, 197, have also been amended. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that the rules of employment unilaterally set up by the employer to deal with the labor regulations and working conditions of workers in the workplace collectively and collectively, so in order to establish an amendment to the rules of employment of the defendant company, the defendant company which is the employer should have modified the matters stipulated in Article 96 of the Labor Standards Act, in accordance with the agreement

However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below that the rules of employment of the defendant company were modified by the agreement in this case.

The rules of employment prescribed in Article 96 of the Labor Standards Act refer to the provision that the employer provides for the working conditions to be applied to all workers of the business concerned, including the worker's service discipline and wages, and it is not subject to the employer's name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da30181, May 10, 1994; 97Da23877, Nov. 28, 1997; 97Da24511, Nov. 28, 1997; 2001Da77970, Jun. 28, 2002).

On the other hand, Article 96 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the duty to report to the administrative agency on the preparation and revision of the rules of employment, the duty to hear opinions of the trade union or workers' representative, and Article 13(1) of the same Act provides that the duty to inform the new company's norms by posting or keeping the rules of employment, but such regulations are merely a regulatory regulation and cannot be viewed as an effective regulation, and thus, even if the employer did not comply with such regulations, it does not immediately become null and void. However, even if the rules of employment stipulate the provisions for the establishment or revision of the rules of employment, even if the employer did not immediately take effect since the rules of employment are within the company prescribed by the employer, it cannot be said that the rules of employment are within the company, and it does not necessarily have to take effect by the method prescribed by Article 13(1) of the Labor Standards Act, but at least, as a procedure corresponding to the promulgation of the statutes, it is necessary to inform the new company's norms through an appropriate method.

According to the records, since the management status of the employee in general service belonging to the defendant company has deteriorated, the employees of the above company participated in the self-help efforts prior to the defendant's labor union by holding a resolution on the payment of bonuses to the defendant company on February 17, 1997 and the resolution on the wage equal to the defendant's labor union on April 14, 1997. However, in the case of the return of bonuses and leave allowances for the labor-management joint resolution of July 29, 1997, the labor union composed of more than half of the workers was not required to make a separate return resolution. As seen above, the employees of the above general service and employees of the defendant company were also members of the defendant company's labor-management's labor-management's labor-management's labor-management's labor-management's labor-management's labor-management's labor-management's labor-management's labor-management cooperation plan to reduce the expenses of the defendant company's labor-management-management's labor-management's labor-management cooperation plan including the defendant company's labor-management's labor-management plan.

According to the above circumstances, the defendant company prepared a self-help plan at the Arabic group level, and made the contents of the plan to reduce bonus and leave expenses of the executives and employees of the company belonging to the elderly group until the Arabic group normalization is made within the self-help plan, and therefore, the above self-help plan includes the modification of the working conditions of the employees, regardless of its title, and thus constitutes the rules of employment regardless of its title. The fact that the defendant company set the policy to reduce bonus and annual leave expenses of the executives and employees until the normalization of the defendant company is made widely known through the press, and the defendant company presented the self-help plan including such contents to the defendant union, and sufficiently informed the whole employees through the intra-company promotion media of the defendant company, and the modification of the above rules of employment is also applicable to the above plaintiffs who are not the members of the defendant union. Even if the defendant company did not go through the amendment procedure of the rules of employment already existed or did not perform the duty to report, posted, and posted the revised rules of employment, it cannot be said that the above revised rules of employment becomes invalid.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of the amendment to the rules of employment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

C. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

We cannot agree with the lower court’s determination that the collective agreement as amended by the instant agreement is limited to the bonus, etc. in 197.

The fact that Defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment's notification sent to Defendant Trade Union on July 25, 1997 is stated as "to return bonuses to normalized the 1997 (in the case of any year ? 450%)" as recognized by the court below. However, according to the records, it is stated that the Plaintiff Group's creditor bank's letter of self-help plan related to the above group, the written self-help plan prepared by the Defendant Company as of July 28, 1997, and the return of bonuses to the company until the company becomes normal; the defendant company's request for cooperation related to the self-help plan sent to Defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment as of July 24, 1997, and the defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment's resolution to return bonuses to Defendant 197 as of August 4, 1997, including the above 99's resolution to the above company's temporary meeting, and the chairman of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Group's resolution to promote its management normalization."

Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the parties' intent as to the scope of the return of bonuses upon the conclusion of the collective agreement, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal against the plaintiffs from 23 to 37, part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of 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 Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)