In a case where: (a) a trade union to which more than 140 counselors of the call center public service among six trade unions existing within the bargaining unit of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation belongs, filed an application for the division of the bargaining unit with a Regional Labor Relations Commission; (b) but the Regional Labor Relations Commission did not need to separate the bargaining unit; and (c) the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination of the Gap trade union on the same ground, the case holding that the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the call center public service counselor of the Korea Labor Relations Commission is unnecessary to separate the bargaining unit from the general service and other public service is groundless

From among six labor unions that exist within the negotiation unit of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, the labor union Gap to which more than 140 counselors of the call center Gap belongs, applied for the division of the bargaining unit to the Regional Labor Relations Commission, stating that the labor union "the director of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation's call center's office is divided into a separate bargaining unit", but the local labor union did not need to separate the bargaining unit, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination by Gap

Although there are some differences in the applicable regulations, working hours, wage levels, wage items, promotion system, etc. between the public service counselor of the call center and other public service and general service, it is difficult to deem that there is a substantial difference in working conditions due to the difference in the duties by occupational group or the government's policies for the transition of non-regular workers to regular workers, characteristics as public institutions of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, etc., the call center's public service counselor, other public service, and general service are employed through open recruitment, and there are some differences in the specific employment procedures of the public service worker and the general service worker of the call center through open recruitment, but it cannot be deemed that there is no intrinsic difference in the employment form. The Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service does not have a fact that the bargaining unit between labor and management of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service and the call center is not operated separately, and there is no practice that separately negotiates between the labor union and the public service 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 trade union's profit and management.

Articles 29-2, 29-3 (1) and (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

Gwangju Regional Trade Union (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

June 25, 2020

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The review decision made by the National Labor Relations Commission on November 15, 2019 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) on the application case for review of separation of bargaining units shall be revoked.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On April 17, 2002, the Plaintiff is an industrial trade union at a national level established with the organization of workers in Gwangju-nam area. On June 12, 2019, the Plaintiff organized the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service Branch of Gwangju District Council (hereinafter “instant Branch”) for counselors at the call center’s public offices belonging to the Intervenor Corporation. As of the above Branch, more than 140 members are present.

B. The Intervenor is a quasi-governmental institution established on May 1, 1995 and engaged in the business of improving the health of industrial accident workers and promoting the welfare of workers, etc. using approximately 9,50 full-time workers, including 6,90 general service workers, 1,660 public service workers, 9,50 fixed-term workers, and 9,50 full-time workers. The Intervenor’s affiliates include six regional headquarters, 54 branch offices, 6 committees, human resources development institutes, call centers, etc.

C. On August 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for the division of bargaining units with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the Intervenor’s call center’s public service counselor is divided into separate bargaining units. On September 10, 2019, the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that “It is difficult to view that there is a significant difference in working conditions between the call center public service counselor and the general service and other public service worker, and there is no practice of negotiations conducted separately between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor. There is no practice of negotiations conducted between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor; the joint bargaining trade union re-consigns the right to negotiate wage agreement in 2019 to the National Public Service and Social Workers’ Union, where the joint bargaining trade union partially joined the call center public service counselor, and it is highly probable that the negotiations will progress including the next public service counselor of the call center public service worker.

D. On October 16, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial trial decision (hereinafter “instant initial trial decision”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In comparison with the general service and other public service positions of participants, it is difficult to expect that the call center's public service counselor has a significant difference in working conditions, the type of employment is different, and the joint bargaining trade union should reflect the interests of the call center's public service counselor, and it is necessary to separate the call center's public service counselor from a separate bargaining unit.

B. Legal principles on the standard of determining the necessity of separation of bargaining units

Article 29-2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Act”) provides for the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows to require bargaining by determining a representative bargaining trade union in cases where there are not less than two trade unions which have established or joined a business or workplace regardless of its structural form, and Article 29-3(1) of the same Act provides, “the unit that shall determine a representative bargaining trade union pursuant to Article 29-2 (hereinafter “Negotiation unit”) shall be one business or workplace.” Article 29-3(2) of the same Act provides, “Where it is deemed necessary to divide the bargaining unit in consideration of the significant difference of working conditions in one business or workplace, type of employment, bargaining practices, etc., notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Labor Relations Commission may decide to divide the bargaining unit at the request of both or either of the parties to labor relations.”

Considering the content and form of the provision of the Trade Union Act and the legislative purport of the Trade Union Act that recognizes the separation of bargaining units in certain cases while in principle, in light of the legislative purport of the Trade Union Act that recognizes the separation of bargaining units, “where it is deemed necessary to separate bargaining units” under Article 29-3(2) of the Trade Union Act means exceptional cases where the simplification of bargaining windows through a representative bargaining trade union is likely to cause a result inconsistent with the purport of the single bargaining channel system that intends to establish a stable bargaining system through the uniform formation of working conditions (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du39361, Sept. 13, 2018).

C. Facts of recognition

1) Within the negotiating unit of an intervenor, there are six trade unions in total of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Workers’ Union, the Korea Health and Medical Service Industry Trade Union, the Korea Workers’ Union, the Korea Workers’ Union, the Korea Workers’ Union, the Korea KWC and the Plaintiff Trade Union. The status

(2) The number of non-party 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 4, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2,2, 1, 1, 3,2,2, 3 (3, 9, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3

2) The intervenor has consistently conducted collective bargaining between labor and management through the simplification of bargaining windows, and there is no fact that the bargaining unit of the intervenor has been separated and operated within the bargaining unit of the intervenor.

3) The intervenor’s public service position refers to the worker who has entered into an employment contract with the intervenor for the regular and continuous work, with no fixed period of time, and the public service position is possible to join the remaining five trade unions, excluding the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, among six trade unions within the negotiating unit of the intervenor.

4) On December 21, 2017, an intervenor entered into a collective agreement (term of validity: from December 21, 2017 to December 20, 2019) with the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, the Korea Health and Medical Service Trade Union, the Korea Public Health and Medical Services Trade Union, the Korea Workers’ Union, and the Korea Labor Welfare Union. The content of the collective agreement is as follows.

Workers in general service or public service (excluding those who act for an employer under the Trade Union Act) within the scope of the number of tickets classified in the main text, shall be 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week (Provided, That they may be determined differently according to the characteristics of their duties), paid holidays, legal holidays, temporary holidays, 40 hours a week (Provided, That they may be determined differently according to the characteristics of their duties), paid holidays, legal holidays, temporary holidays, temporary leave, day of the establishment of the Corporation, annual leave, leave of absence of the Corporation, public leave, sick leave, maternity leave, maternity or stillbirth leave, protective leave (damage of sexual harassment, etc.), welfare welfare facilities, operation of loans, children's school expenses, commuting support, sports events, work support, overseas training of excellent employees, school uniforms, meals, education and training, education and training,

5) On December 6, 2018, an intervenor entered into a wage agreement in 2018 with the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Workers’ Union, a joint bargaining trade union, and the Korea Health and Medical Services Trade Union. The details of the aforementioned wage agreement are as follows.

2. The rate of increase (3.31% to 7.20%) shall apply differently according to the class (class 3-7) in general service. 3. In order to improve the treatment of public officials (employment information sources), the rate of increase of KRW 9.1% of basic salary in 2018 and KRW 300,000 for bonuses (8,000), welfare points of KRW 43,000 ( KRW 343,00), new establishment of meal expenses ( KRW 130,000), memorial services 80,000 for commemorative days (within the scope of remaining financial resources).

6) The Intervenor established the Gwangju Call Center on December 5, 2010, the Incheon Call Center on May 26, 2015, and the Ulsan Call Center on September 6, 2016, respectively, and the manpower working at the call center concluded an entrustment contract with an external company.

7) Based on the government’s policy on the conversion of non-regular workers into regular workers in the public sector, the Intervenor formulated the "Plan for Conversion into Regular Workers by Call Centers" on December 5, 2018, and directly employed call center consultants who were affiliated with the service company on January 1, 2019.

8) On June 12, 2019, the Intervenor’s public service counselors affiliated with the Gwangju Call Center joined the Plaintiff Trade Union, and the Plaintiff organized the instant branch on the same day. On June 13, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that 129 workers affiliated with the Intervenor was affiliated with the Plaintiff Trade Union.

9) On August 2019, the status of joining the trade union of a public service counselor at the call center within the Intervenor Corporation as of August 2019 is as follows:

130 Labor Union of the Plaintiff, 140 Labor Union of the Magcheon and Ulsan, which is included in the main sentence, the call center for public service workers of the Call Center (U.S.) shall be 130

10) As the existing collective agreement expired on December 21, 2019, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Workers' Union demanded collective bargaining to the intervenors on July 17, 2019, and the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows were as follows.

The date of the request for bargaining in the main text - the date of the request for bargaining in the public announcement of the fact of the request for bargaining - the date of the request for bargaining on July 17, 2019 - the period of public announcement of the request for bargaining on July 17, 2019 - the labor union requesting bargaining on July 17, 2019 to July 24, 2019 - the period of public announcement of the request for bargaining - the labor union participating on July 25, 2019 to July 25, 2019 to July 30, 2019 - the plaintiff, the labor union of Korea Labor

11) The six trade unions within the bargaining unit of the Intervenor, including the Plaintiff, participated in the procedures for simplification of the above bargaining windows, and agreed on August 5, 2019 to determine the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Workers’ Union and the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service and the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service and the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service Branch as a joint bargaining trade union. In addition, the joint bargaining trade union agreed to re-entrust the right to negotiate the wage agreement for the members of the public service workers in 2019 to the Korea Workers’ Compensation

The national public transportation and social service trade union (the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service Workers' Association, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service Workers' Association, the Korea Workers' Welfare Service Association, the Korea Workers' Welfare Service Association, the Korea Workers' Welfare Service Association, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service Association, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service Association, the Gwangju Regional Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service Branch, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service Association, the Korea Teachers' Compensation and Welfare Service Branch and the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service Branch shall delegate the right to collective bargaining and conclusion to the above joint bargaining trade union: Provided, That the joint bargaining trade union shall re-entrust it to the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service Workers' Office, apart from the right to negotiate the wage agreement in 2019, with the right to negotiate the wage agreement.

12) Comparing the working conditions of consultants at the call center with those of their general service and other public service positions, the following:

The wage level of Grade 3 to 7 administrative affairs, such as counseling centers for public service workers and other centers for indefinite-based employment (general, appointment, responsibilities), counseling centers for public service workers in the form of employment of general service workers, 1,746,000 won (general) or 3,230,000 won (general), 1,745,000 won-2,107,000 won-3,92,000 won (Grade 1 to 7), and 2,000 won for fixed-term workers in the form of employment of general service workers; 3,00 won for public service workers; 1,70,000 won for public service workers; 1,70,000 won for public service workers; 2,000 won for public service contracts for fixed-term workers in the form of 7,00 won for public service; 3,000 won for public service workers in the form of employment of Grade 7,000 allowance for legal security, legal allowance for work, 10% bonus for public service workers, 4,0% bonus for public service workers.

13) According to the Intervenor’s “Guidelines for the Payment of life-saving bonuses, such as public service and fixed-term workers,” a life-saving bonus paid to public service workers was prepared to improve the treatment of public service workers and fixed-term workers in accordance with the government’s guidelines for the conversion of non-regular workers into regular workers.

14) According to the Intervenor’s explanation on industrial accident insurance accounting projects in 2020, the amount of personnel expenses for general service and other public service is set out as the Service’s personnel expenses, while the amount of personnel expenses for public service counselors at the call center is set out as the item of the project expenses for the call center operation.

15) The forms and working hours of the general service, other public service, and consultants are:

In the form of service, working hours, - Principles of counselors for public service and other public service workers included in the main sentence: Three (D 07:00 to 15:25 E 15:00 to 23:00 to 23:07:25) - Electrical, mechanical, and communications technicians: Workers with two-day work hours per day: Two-day work hours per day: 09:0-17: 00 to 07: 00-17: 00 to 07: 08: 30-17: 4: C09: 08 to 300-17: 00 on April 4, 200, 309: 10 to 300-10-30-10-30-10-30-10-30-10-13: 1: 1: 1: 308-30-30-1,010-30-1.

6) The minimum years of service required for promotion or similar systems of promotion and promotion of the Intervenor are as follows:

Class 1 to Grade 7 (Classification by Occupational Groups), General, Appointment, responsible consultants (similarly similar) and the minimum number of years required for promotion of 4: Grade 2: Grade 3: 4: Grade 5: Grade 5: 3: 3: 6: 2: 2: 3 years: 3 years: 3 years: 2 years: 5: 5 years: 5 years: 5 years: 5 years: 5 years: 3 years: 3 years;

17) The Intervenor’s general service is selected through the three-stage screening of document screening, written examination, and interview, and is employed as a full-time intern after his/her employment for a certain period of time. On the other hand, the call center counselor shall be employed without a separate probation period, subject to the document screening and the two-stage screening.

18) The part relating to the instant case among the intervenor’s internal regulations is as follows:

본문내 포함된 표 ▣ 복무규정 제22조(근무시간) ① 직원의 근무시간은 09:00~18:00까지로 한다. ④ 이사장은 계절의 변화, 직무의 특수성 및 특별한 사정으로 인하여 필요한 경우에는 제1항 및 제2항의 근무시간을 변경 또는 조정할 수 있다. ⑥ 3교대 근무자의 근무시간은 제1항부터 제2항까지의 규정에도 불구하고 휴게시간 30분을 포함하여 다음과 같다. 1. D: 시작시간 07:00 종료시간 15:25 2. E: 시작시간 15:00 종료시간 23:25 3. N: 시작시간 23:00 종료시간 07:25 ▣ 인사규정 제27조(승진소요 최저연수) ① 직원이 승진함에 있어서는 다음 각호의 어느 하나의 기간 동안 해당 직급에 재직하여야 한다. 1. 1급: 4년 2. 2급: 4년 3. 3급: 4년 4. 4급: 3년 5. 5급: 3년 6. 6급: 2년 7. 7급: 2년 제44조(정년) ① 직원의 정년은 만 60세로 한다. 다만 다음 각호의 사람은 정년을 적용하지 아니할 수 있다. 1. 개방형 직위로서 업무상질병판정위원회 위원장병원장(전문의 자격 소지자) 수석연구위원 2. 2014. 3. 27. 이후에 채용된 별정직 의사 ▣ 보수규정 제2조(적용범위) 근로복지공단(이하 ‘공단’이라 한다)의 임직원의 보수에 관하여 다른 법령 또는 규정에서 따로 정한 것을 제외하고는 이 규정에 따른다. 제4조(보수의 종류) ② 직원의 보수는 다음 각호와 같다. 2. 제16조에 따라 기본급표를 적용받는 직원 가. 기본급: 직급별 호봉급 나. 제 수당: 특수지근무수당, 특수업무수당, 장기근속수당, 가족수당, 법정수당, 업무대행수당, 출산장려수당 다. 상여금 라. 성과급 3. 제33조의 공무직 및 기간제근로자 가. 기본(연봉)급: 직렬별 및 직무별 직무급 나. 제 수당: 법정수당 등 다. 명절상여금 제31조(상여금) ① 제16조에 따라 별표 1의 기본급표를 적용받는 직원의 상여금은 월 기본급의 연 100%를 지급한다. ② 상여금은 지급일 현재 기본급을 기준으로 다음 각호의 명목 및 지급비율에 따라 지급한다. 1. 설: 월 기본급의 30% 2. 가정의 달: 월 기본급의 20% 3. 하계휴가: 월 기본급의 20% 4. 추석: 월 기본급의 30% ▣ 보수규정 시행세칙 제24조의2(공무직 및 기간제근로자 보수) ①「보수규정」제33조 및「공무직 및 기간제근로자 관리세칙」제2조 제1호 및 제2호에 따른 근로자 중 사무원, 퇴직연금운영요원, 진폐사무원, 기록물관리전문요원, 웹디자이너, 행정기능원, 근로자정보입력원, 전기·기계·통신기사, 운전원, 영선·조경기사, 시설미화원, 시설안내원, 시설경비원, 시설방호원, 요양보호사, 세탁관리원 및 촉탁전문직 보수는 다음 각호와 같다. 1. 기본(연봉)급 2. 각종 수당 가. 가족수당 나. 안전관리수당 다. 시간외근무수당, 야간근무수당, 휴일근무수당, 연차유급휴가미사용수당 3. 급식보조비 4. 명절상여금 ② 제1항에서 명시되지 않은 직렬의 보수에 관하여는 이사장이 따로 정한다. ③ 직무의 난이도와 책임도 등에 따른 직무분류가 필요한 직렬에 대한 직무분류 기준은 별표 4와 같다. 제24조의4(공무직 및 기간제근로자 보수지급 기준 특례) ① 이 장에서 보수지급 기준이 명시되지 않은 공무직 및 기간제근로자의 보수에 관하여는 직무의 난이도와 책임도 등을 고려하여 공단 이사장이 따로 정한다. ▣ 공무직 및 기간제근로자 관리세칙 제2조(정의) 이 세칙에서 사용하는 용어의 뜻은 다음과 같다. 1. “공무직근로자”란 상시·지속적 업무에 대하여 근로복지공단(이하 ‘공단’이라 한다)과 기간의 정함이 없는 근로계약을 체결한 사람으로서「직제규정」제6조 제2항 별표 2 및 같은 규정 시행세칙 제4조 제1항 별표 5의3의 공무직을 말한다. 제22조(정년) ① 공무직근로자의 정년은 만 60세로 한다. 다만 시설미화원 및 시설경비원은 만 65세로 한다. 제47조(휴일) ① 공무직 등에게 다음 각호와 같이 유급휴일을 부여한다. 1. 일요일 2. 법정공휴일 3. 근로자의 날, 공단 창립일〈대체휴가 1일 부여〉 4. 그 밖에 정부 또는 공단에서 임시로 정한 날 ② 토요일은 무급휴무일로 한다. ③ 교대제 근무자의 경우 제1항 및 제2항의 규정에 의한 휴일에 근무하게 하고 정상근무일과 교체하게 할 수 있다. ④ 제1항부터 제3항까지의 규정에서 정하지 아니한 휴일의 운영에 관한 사항은「복무규정」에 의한다. 제48조(휴가) ① 공무직 등에게 부여하는 휴가는 다음 각호와 같이 구분하고 이를 유급으로 한다. 다만 제6호에 따른 휴가는 무급으로 한다. 1. 연차휴가 2. 공가 3. 병가 4. 특별휴가 5. 출산전후휴가(유산·사산휴가, 태아검진휴가 포함) 6. 생리휴가 7. 기타 휴가(휴일근로 대체휴가) 제48조의2(연차휴가) ① 공무직 등에게 부여하는 연차휴가 부여기준 및 사용방법 등은「복무규정」에 의한다. ② 제1항의 규정에도 불구하고 24시간 격일제 근무자(24시간 근무 48시간 휴무제 포함)가 근무일과 다음 날 부여하는 비번일을 모두 쉴 경우 2일의 연차휴가를 사용한 것으로 본다. 다만 근무일 또는 비번일인 다음 날에 근무일의 절반에 해당하는 근로(반일근무)를 하는 경우 1일의 연차휴가를 사용한 것으로 본다. 제48조의3(공가) 공무직 등의 공가는「복무규정」에 의한다. 제56조(보수) 공무직 등의 보수는「보수규정」및 관련 지침에 따른다. ▣ 콜센터 운영규정 제2조(정의) 이 규정에서 사용하는 용어의 뜻은 다음과 같다. 1. “공무직 상담사”란 근로복지공단(이하 ‘공단’이라 한다) 콜센터(이하 ‘콜센터’라 한다)에서 전화상담 및 인터넷상담 등을 전담하는 공단 직원(이하 ‘상담사’라 한다)을 말한다. 제7조(근무시간) 전 일 제 반 일 제 1. A 근무형: 08:00~17:00 1. E 근무형: 08:30~13:00 2. B 근무형: 08:30~17:30 2. F 근무형: 09:00~13:30 3. 표준 근무형: 09:00~18:00 3. G 근무형: 10:30~15:00 4. C 근무형: 09:30~18:30 4. H 근무형: 13:00~17:30 5. D 근무형: 10:00~19:00 5. I 근무형: 13:30~18:00 ※ 근무시간 중 전일제는 1시간, 반일제는 30분의 휴게시간 포함임 ① 콜센터의 상담시간은 원칙적으로 평일 08:00부터 19:00까지로 하며, 상담업무의 효율성 제고를 위하여 다음 표와 같이 상담사의 근무시간을 지정하여 운영할 수 있다. 이 경우 전일제 근무자는 B 근무형 및 표준 근무형을 기본으로 하며, 반일제 근무자는 3개월 단위로 근무시간을 변경할 수 있다. ② 상담사는 근무시작과 함께 상담시스템에 로그인하고, 휴게·교육·중식시간 등에는 이석으로 설정하며, 근무시간 종료 후에는 로그아웃 한다. ③ 콜센터장은 1일 법정 근무시간 범위에서 콜센터의 전화량 변동 등 업무환경의 변화에 따라 제1항의 상담시간을 탄력적으로 조정할 수 있다. 제26조(콜센터 인사·복무 및 보수관리) ① 콜센터 상담사의 채용, 인사, 복무 등에 관하여는「공무직 및 기간제근로자 관리세칙」을 준용한다. ② 콜센터 상담사의 보수는「보수규정 시행세칙」제24조의4에 따라 별도로 정한다. ③ 상담사가 다음 각호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 기간 동안 해당 직무에 재직한 경우에는 결원, 신규채용 규모 등 인력소요를 고려하여「공무직 및 기간제근로자 관리세칙」제9조 제2항에 따른 보통인사위원회의 심의를 거쳐 상위의 직무를 부여할 수 있다. 1. 선임상담사: 5년 2. 일반상담사: 3년 ④ 제3항에 의한 상위의 직무는 기간을 정하여 부여할 수 있다. 이 경우 정한 기간이 만료되면 원래의 직무를 부여하여야 한다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 10, 12 to 15, Eul's 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

(d) Whether it is necessary to separate a bargaining unit;

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the purport of the above recognition and the entire pleading, it cannot be deemed that there is a significant difference in the difference or significant employment conditions between the public service counselor of the call center and the public service worker of general service and other public service workers. There is no practice of negotiations conducted by dividing the public service counselor of the call center into a separate negotiating unit. The benefits to be achieved by separating the public service counselor of the call center into a separate negotiating unit cannot be deemed to exceed the benefits achieved by maintaining the procedures of simplification of the bargaining channel. Thus, the need to separate the public service counselor of the call center from the general service worker and other public service workers is not recognized. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(i) working conditions;

A) There exists a difference between the government’s public sector’s non-regular transition policy, the content and difficulty of duties by occupational group, worker’s skill training degree, authority and responsibility, wage level in the labor market, etc. However, it cannot be readily concluded that there is a substantial difference in the working conditions through the simple comparison of wage level and wage constituent items.

B) The retirement age is equal to 60 years for a public service counselor, a public service counselor, a general service worker, and a public service worker. However, while the retirement age differs to 65 years for a facility security and a public service worker, this seems to be the result of considering the fact that the elderly is particularly high in the facility security and the type of work for facilities.

C) As a matter of principle, the working hours are the same from 09:00 to 18:00. Meanwhile, the call center’s public service counselors are subject to the full-time system and half-day system, and there are some differences in working hours and the form of service, such as the application of the facility security guards, electricity, machinery, and telecommunications engineers, etc. among other public service workers. However, this is due to an essential difference in the duties assigned to each service group.

D) Although Article 26(1) of the Call Center Operation Regulations provides that “The Regulations on the Appointment, Personnel Management, and Services of Call Centers shall apply mutatis mutandis to the recruitment, service, etc. of consultants at call centers.” Article 26(1) of the Regulations on the Call Center Regulations provides that “The Regulations on the Management of Public Service and Fixed-Term Workers shall apply mutatis mutandis to the reward for public service positions (Article 29); Article 29 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Public Service shall apply mutatis mutandis to the audit and inspection (Article 30); Article 30 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management and the Regulations on the Implementation of the Regulations on the Personnel Management and the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Public Service shall apply mutatis mutandis to the disciplinary proceedings on public service positions; and Article 47, the Regulations on the Operation of Leave, including holidays, annual leave, special leave, maternity leave, and unpaid leave, shall apply to the Regulations on the Regulations on the Management of Public Service (Article 48-2, 3,5 through 8). As such, counseling and other public service workers at call centers and the current standards on the Personnel Management and other standards on public service.

E) It is difficult to view that there is structural difference to the extent that there is a separate negotiation unit between the budget for personnel expenses of the general service and other public service workers and the budget for personnel expenses of the call center counselors, or there is a difference between the public service workers of the call center, other public service workers, promotion system, and the minimum years required for promotion of the general service.

F) As above, there are some differences in the application regulations, working hours, wage levels, wage items, promotion system, etc. between the public service counselor and other public service, and the general service. However, it is difficult to deem that there is a significant difference in working conditions due to the difference in duties by occupational group, government policy to convert non-regular workers into regular workers, characteristics of the Intervenor’s public agency, etc.

(ii) the type of employment;

All of the public service counselors, other public service providers, and general service in the call center are employed as indefinite contract workers through open employment. There are some differences in the specific employment procedures between the public service counselor and the general service. However, such circumstance alone does not necessarily change in the employment form.

3) Negotiation practices

An intervenor has conducted collective bargaining between labor and management in a uniform manner through the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows, and concluded a single collective agreement and applied in a lump sum to all trade unions and members belonging thereto who participated in the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows, but exceptionally, where it is necessary to set working conditions differently in consideration of the specificity of individual trade unions or individual occupational groups, it has been supplemented in a way that sets a separate standard. As such, there has not been no separate or operation of bargaining units between labor and management of the intervenor, and in particular, there has been no practices of negotiations between the intervenor and the call center public service counselor on June 12, 2019.

(iv) the maintenance of procedures for simplification of bargaining windows and the balance of interest in separation of bargaining units;

A) If a call center is divided into a separate negotiating unit, a separate collective agreement may be concluded between a public service counselor of the call center and a public service counselor of the general service, or between other public service workers. Accordingly, conflicts between trade unions or between trade unions and users, the fall of bargaining efficiency, the increase of bargaining costs, and difficulties in labor management may arise.

B) A worker belonging to the same company is bound to be formed differently in terms of the working conditions and the type of employment depending on the characteristics of the work in charge. In a case where the separation of bargaining units is recognized solely on the grounds of a somewhat different difference between the working conditions and the type of employment, the risk of the simplification of bargaining windows may not be ruled out by dividing the bargaining units by the detailed occupational group and trade union that wants individual bargaining.

C) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that it is difficult to expect that the joint bargaining trade union will reflect the interests of the public service counselors of the call center because the joint bargaining trade union does not join the call center’s public service counselor. However, the joint bargaining trade union re-consigns the right to negotiate wage agreements of the members of the public service sector in 2019 to the National Public Service and the Incheon and Ulsan Regional Call Center’s public service trade union are the members of the Incheon and Ulsan Regional Call Center’s public service trade union. Therefore, in the process of wage negotiations, it is likely that the call center’s public service consultants will be able to sufficiently discuss and negotiate the requirements of the public

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the decision of the retrial of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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

[Separate] Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)