High Transfer City Management Corporation (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Cho Nam-nam et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

September 24, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On February 19, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the decision of review made on February 19, 2014 with respect to the case of application for a separation of bargaining units between the Plaintiff and the Korean Public Transport and Social Services Trade Union.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. Status of the parties

1) The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs a construction and housing site development business with 215 full-time workers at the center of Goyang-gu, Seoyang-si and 1601. The type of occupation of the Plaintiff’s workplace and the number of employees and job descriptions by type of employment are as follows.

Executive officers - 113 executive officers who work half of the number of persons engaged in the category of tickets included in the main sentence - 113 executive officers: - 12 technical staff members who work in the technical field, such as electricity management, machinery management, construction management, etc. - 43 facilities managers, parking instructors, counselors, drivers, 7 executive assistant employees who work in the field of seven physical instructors who work in the field of in-service, such as freezing, ice, machinery and construction, etc.

2) The Korean Public Transport and Social Services Trade Union (hereinafter “instant trade union”) is an industrial trade union on a national level whose organization covers workers engaged in public, transportation, and social service business, and the higher organization is the Korean Democratic Public Transport Association. On September 14, 2013, 59 commercial workers employed by the Plaintiff were admitted to the said trade union.

3) On the other hand, the plaintiff has a trade union for high-transfer and management work which has joined as a full-time or contractual worker excluding the plaintiff's ordinary workers.

(b) The initial trial and decision on the application for decision on the separation of bargaining units;

1) On December 9, 2013, the instant trade union filed an application for a decision on the division of bargaining units with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on the grounds that it is necessary to separate bargaining units for the significant difference in working conditions between full-time workers and full-time workers, such as general service and technical service, and the application of separate rules of employment. The said trade union filed an application for a decision on the division of bargaining units with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on December 9, 2013, on the ground that the said committee “There is no significant difference in the working conditions and employment types between full-time workers and other occupational categories, and there is no bargaining practice to the extent that it is recognized as the separation of bargaining units, etc.” (hereinafter “instant initial trial court”).

2) Accordingly, on January 24, 2014, the instant trade union filed an application for review seeking revocation of the instant initial trial tribunal. On February 19, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the instant initial trial tribunal and rendered a decision to the effect that the Plaintiff’s permanent employees and other employees in general service and technical service should be separated from the bargaining unit of the workers in occupational categories, such as the Plaintiff’s general service and technical service (hereinafter “instant initial trial decision”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's commercial and other types of occupation are only some differences in working conditions, and they do not have any difference in the degree of separation of bargaining units in such working conditions, type of employment, and bargaining practice. The decision on separation of bargaining units is granted to the Labor Relations Commission, and such decision cannot be revoked unless it falls under the scope of illegal and monthly rights. Nevertheless, the decision on reexamination of this case was revoked as illegal since it was revoked.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 69(1) and (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act”) provides that the parties concerned may apply for a review to the National Labor Relations Commission in cases where the arbitration award rendered by a local Labor Relations Commission is deemed unlawful or unjust, and may institute an administrative litigation in cases where the National Labor Relations Commission recognizes that the decision on review is illegal or unjust. Here, “illegal” or “monthly” refers to cases where the procedure of arbitration is unlawful or unlawful due to the violation of the Labor Standards Act, etc., or where the contents thereof are not the object of a dispute between the parties, or where the arbitration award is made in excess of the scope of dispute between the parties without justifiable grounds, or where the arbitration award is not allowed merely because it is unfavorable or unreasonable to either of the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du8024, Aug. 20, 200, etc.).

In full view of the evidence adopted earlier, Gap evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged:

① On April 1, 2011, the Plaintiff was launched through the merger between the Korea Facilities Management Corporation and the Korea Facilities Management Corporation, and the commercial workers belonging to the Plaintiff were originally affiliated with the Korea Facilities Management Corporation. Before the integration, the said employer and the said commercial workers were in progress and entered into a separate consultative body, and even after the integration, the “Inorganic Contract Employment Steering Committee” composed of the said commercial workers entered into an indefinite Contract Employment Agreement with the Plaintiff on April 13, 2012 and the year 2011.

② On February 19, 2013, a high-level management work union organized as a business-based employee of the Plaintiff was established.

③ Meanwhile, on June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff and the high-transfer management work trade union concluded a collective agreement in 2013. However, the said collective agreement was subject to only the members belonging to the high-transfer management work trade union, and the high-transfer management work trade union entered into a separate agreement with the Plaintiff representative director on July 19, 2013.

④ 59 members of the Korea Trade Union, which belongs to the Korea Trade Union, were established on September 14, 2013 as a branch of the Korea Trade Union on the instant trade union without any separate dissolution report or structural change. The current status of the Plaintiff’s employees’ membership in the trade union is as follows.

On March 11, 2011 on the date of the establishment of a union for the establishment of the National Democratic Public Transport Service Workers' Union (the instant trade union) higher-level organizations, contained in the main sentence of the same, on March 11, 2011, on September 14, 2013, on September 2014, 2013, on June 20, 2015, on June 20, 2015, the 59 full-time union staff members of each trade union for each trade union in a structural mountain, on June 20, 2015, on June 20, the date of the expiration of the collective agreement of 137 members: general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-business affairs, cultural business, cultural business, transportation, transportation, business department-type-business-business-, construction, machinery, machinery and equipment-related.

⑤ Since October 4, 2013, the instant trade union made a demand to the Plaintiff for negotiations regarding collective agreements and wage agreements in 2013, procedures for simplification of bargaining windows were initiated. On November 14, 2013, the high transfer and management trade union was decided as the Plaintiff’s representative bargaining trade union.

6. However, the Plaintiff and the representative bargaining trade union of high-tier management corporation, a representative bargaining trade union, have not been engaged in collective bargaining with the Plaintiff on November 14, 2013 after the trade union was determined as a representative bargaining trade union, until the date of decision on the retrial

7. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s ordinary workers who belong to the instant trade union is subject to the Management Regulations, which is a special provision, and other types of occupation belonging to the said trade union shall be subject to employment regulations, remuneration regulations, personnel regulations, etc., and other working conditions are as follows.

Non-permanent employment contract in the form of employment contract, non-permanent wage system, monthly salary system, annual salary system, monthly wage basis, etc. included in the main sentence of this Decree, and the place of work shall not be strictly classified once a year within the scope of collective agreement or government increase rate through a collective agreement on the basis of monthly wage: The total annual salary budget calculation principles applicable between types of work (Application of salary grade system) excess allowances, annual allowances, encouragement allowances, promotion allowances, children education allowances, annual salary, fixed-term allowance, annual salary for continuous service, health allowance, management allowances, special duty allowances, annual salary for school expenses, annual salary for 0% of the total salary budget calculation guidelines for personnel expenses applicable between categories of work, and wage items (applicable salary grade system: 1,086,110 won, annual salary rate of 1,000 won, annual salary rate of 3: Not more than 1,000 won, annual salary rate of 1,000 won, annual salary rate of 3: 60% of the total salary rate for children and children education (annual, etc.).

8) With respect to the application for the division of bargaining units by the instant trade union, the lower court determined that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s workplace did not have a significant difference in working conditions, etc., if a separate bargaining unit is separated based on a specific type of occupation, conflict and confusion between types of occupation may occur in the process of simplification of bargaining windows and bargaining process. Even if a trade union to which it belongs is not capable of becoming a representative bargaining trade union, if the pertinent representative bargaining trade union discriminates against the trade union in the process of concluding a collective agreement, the contents of an agreement, or the implementation of an agreement, it is not necessary to distinguish the Plaintiff’s workplace from other types of occupation in light of the fact that it is possible to remedy a minor trade union’s rights through the application system for correction of violation of the obligation of fair representation.

9) On this premise, the decision of the review of this case was made on the premise that the plaintiff and other types of occupation meet the objective requirements for separation of bargaining units, such as a significant difference in working conditions, type of employment, bargaining practices, etc., and then, it is reasonable to represent the plaintiff's commercial workers in high-transfer and management work union in terms of common interests and representative nature, and it is rather difficult to negotiate in the future, and it is more likely that maintaining the plaintiff's bargaining units as one of the plaintiff's trade unions will make it difficult to negotiate in the future, and there is a need to separate bargaining units for smooth bargaining. Thus, the first trial court of this case recognized that there was an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles concerning the separation of bargaining units under the Trade Union Act, which is determined on the need for separation of bargaining units.

In full view of the above facts, the plaintiff's business position is not included in the prescribed number of employees under the organization regulation, and it is recognized that the business position consists of a facility manager, a parking lot, a counselor, etc., and the other types of work and the affairs are clearly distinguishable and that the movement (personnel exchange) between other types of work is not allowed. 2) The plaintiff's business position is basically subject to the rules of business employment unlike the other types of work, and in particular, the wage system is governed by the rules of the public officials' remuneration, and it is sufficiently recognized that the job classification of the plaintiff's general and technical skill is composed of the basic salary and the allowance for each type of work under the rules of business employment. 3) Lastly, in relation to the bargaining practice, the plaintiff's business worker has organized and organized a consultative body or labor union separate from the other types of work, the plaintiff's business worker's labor union's labor union's labor union's labor union's labor union's labor union's labor union's labor union's labor union's labor union's labor union's labor union's labor union's labor union's labor union's labor union's management.

However, the first trial court of this case denied the necessity of separation of bargaining units in the Plaintiff’s workplace on the ground that it is recognized that the same basic wage system was formed in comparison with the ordinary workers and other jobs, and did not explain that the wage system for ordinary workers was different, and rather, it is difficult to view that there is a substantial difference in the nature paid on a monthly basis.”

Thus, since the high-transfer management corporation trade union's representative of bargaining for commercial workers is unreasonable and necessary to separate bargaining units, it is deemed that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-examination of the necessity of separation of bargaining units or the separation of bargaining units under the Trade Union Act in the first trial court of this case. The decision of this case to the same purport is lawful, and it is difficult to see that there is any illegality or sovereignty.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Byung-sik (Presiding Judge)