Whether a separate report on the occurrence of a labor dispute and a cooling period should be applied where a new dispute is added during a legitimate industrial action (negative)

Even if a labor dispute occurred due to a disagreement in the claim on working conditions, and a new dispute was added to a new one while the workers report the occurrence of the labor dispute and continue the industrial action through the cooling period, there is no obligation to report the occurrence of a separate labor dispute and to go through the cooling period.

Articles 14 and 16 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 91No5864 delivered on February 19, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Judgment on the Defendants’ ground of appeal No. 1

The court below held that since the Defendants worked at the National Assembly site on January 5, 1990 when the Defendants were in charge of labor union activities in order to conclude collective agreements as members of the Sejong Enterprise Promotion Association, the Defendants refused to work with all union members from 07:00 to 12:00 on the following day after they went out of the National Assembly building at around 12:00 on May 12:0, when the public authority is likely to be put, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence to recognize that the Defendants violated the rules of evidence, such as labor union employees at the cleaning site of the National Assembly and returning them to the U.S. court, and thus, the above Defendants did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence to find that the Defendants violated the rules of evidence, such as labor union employees at the cleaning site of the National Assembly, and thus, the court below did not accept the above order of dismissal or dismissal of the above Defendants.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

If the facts were duly determined by the court below, the defendants conducted industrial actions that interfere with the normal operation of the above company's business in a place other than the pertinent business place in order to accomplish the allegations as the parties to the labor relations jointly with 40 other trade union members, so the defendants did not interfere with the normal operation of the above company's business for the same purpose as provided in Article 3 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, and therefore, the defendants cannot accept the argument that the above activities of the defendants do not constitute industrial actions under the Labor Dispute Mediation Act.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

If the facts were duly determined by the court below, it cannot be viewed that the defendants' act of industrial action in a place other than the pertinent place of business was inevitable to the extent of excluding illegality, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimacy of industrial action.

4. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

The court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance court that found the Defendants not guilty of the facts charged, based on the following purport: while the Defendants requested the employer to improve working conditions, such as wage increase, and requested the employer to conduct collective bargaining, the Defendants reported the occurrence of the labor dispute and lawful industrial action through the cooling period was conducted due to the failure to conduct such collective bargaining, and the employer dismissed or issued promotion to another workplace for the reason of the reduction of the number of workers, and the employer asked the Defendants to dismiss or promote the industrial action to the other workplace; and on the ground that the employer has continued to engage in the industrial action, such as the creation of a relief to withdraw the dismissal or transfer of the industrial action, etc., upon the occurrence of the labor dispute, which is a state of disagreement between the parties to labor relations regarding working conditions, due to the occurrence of the labor dispute, which is a state of disagreement between the parties to labor relations regarding the working conditions, and continues the industrial action after the cooling period, even if the disagreement on the working conditions at the time of reporting the occurrence of the previous labor dispute was not resolved.

In light of Article 16 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, which provides that one of the parties to a labor dispute shall report to an administrative agency and notify the other party of such report, and the term "labor dispute" in this Act refers to the state of dispute arising from disagreements between the parties to the labor relations with respect to working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, work and other treatment, and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 2 of the same Act that define industrial action, Article 3 of the same Act that define industrial action, etc., the above determination of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the report of labor dispute, such as the theory of the lawsuit,

5. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants and the prosecutor are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.