The case holding that it does not constitute an unfair labor practice in case where the collective agreement, which is the basis provision of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment System, loses its validity due to the expiration of the term of validity, dismissal of a full-time employee in breach of an order

The case holding that where a collective agreement has become invalid upon the expiration of the term of validity, and the full-time provision of a union representative under the collective agreement is not a normative part agreed to continue to be effective until the conclusion of a new collective agreement, the employer's act of failing to comply with the order to return to work constitutes a ground for dismissal under the rules of employment, and therefore, the employer's dismissal of a union seafarer who did not comply with the order to return to work constitutes an unfair labor practice due to abuse of disciplinary rights, as the exercise of legitimate personnel rights, does not constitute a ground for dismissal under the rules of employment.

Article 35 (3) (see Article 32 (3) of the current Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act), Article 39 (see Article 81 of the current Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act) of the former Trade Union Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to Act No. 5244 of December 31, 1996)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Daegu Trade Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Young-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu16600 delivered on October 15, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff, including the costs of participation in the appeal.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff was selected by the labor union organized by the intervenor to be 35 workers in production service from May 13, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor"), the plaintiff was merely responsible for work of the labor union under the collective agreement concluded with the intervenor on July 6 of the same year, which was presented by the intervenor, and since June 30, 1994, the number of union members was reduced to 11 or 12 persons after the commencement of collective bargaining, which was presented by the intervenor, and the collective agreement was terminated on July 5, 1994 upon the expiration of the term of validity of the agreement, the plaintiff's act of returning to the plaintiff orally from October 10 of the same year because the former worker's former provision on the transfer of labor union members under the collective agreement was invalid, and thus, the plaintiff's act of returning to the plaintiff's labor union did not comply with the above order of dismissal order of the plaintiff's worker on the ground that the plaintiff's act of returning to the labor union was invalid.

In light of the records, the above recognition judgment of the court below is deemed legitimate, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the validity term of a collective agreement under Article 35 (3) of the former Trade Union Act (amended by Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996). In addition, in the event that a new collective agreement was not concluded due to the refusal of collective bargaining, the previous collective agreement continues to maintain its validity even after the expiration of its validity term is merely an independent opinion, and all of the arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)