[1] Whether a collective agreement under which a trade union which does not represent more than 2/3 of workers is based on employment conditions (negative)

[2] Whether the latter part of Article 39 subparag. 2 of the former Trade Union Act is a provision premised on allowing multiple labor union assistance (negative)

[1] Although a trade union does not represent two-thirds or more of the workers employed in the workplace, concluding a collective agreement on employment condition that the workers are members of the trade union is in violation of the latter part of Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the former Trade Union Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda of Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996) and thus, it is not allowed. Thus, the collective order of the competent administrative agency to correct it is justified.

[2] The latter part of Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the former Trade Union Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996) cannot be applied under the former Trade Union Act where the establishment of a new trade union is prohibited as an organization with the existing trade union.

[1] Article 34 (3) of the former Trade Union Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996) (see Article 31 (3) of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act), Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (see Article 81 subparagraph 2 of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act) / [2] Article 3 subparagraph 5 of the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to Act No. 524 of Dec. 31, 1996) and Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

Basic Chemical Trade Union

Ulsan City Mayor (Attorney Ha Man-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 95Gu1880 delivered on January 12, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the collective agreement was just because the plaintiff did not represent two-thirds or more of the workers engaged in the manufacturing industry of paint, etc., and concluded a collective agreement on the ground that it violates Article 34 (3) of the Trade Union Act on December 15, 1994 on the ground that it violates Article 39 (3) of the same Act on the ground that it concluded a collective agreement with the Labor Union Act on December 15, 1994 on the grounds that "the skilled members shall be members at the same time as the membership. In recruiting new members, the membership shall be entered and the labor union shall provide non-systems related to the prevention of union early withdrawal." The above collective agreement was concluded on the ground that the number of workers engaged in the manufacturing industry of paint, etc. is 93 and the head of the trade union was 247 workers.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to collective agreements and unfair labor practices as pointed out in the grounds of appeal, and it shall not be applied under the current Trade Union Act which prohibits the establishment of a new trade union with the existing trade union under the latter part of Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Trade Union Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)