(a) Whether the consent by collective decision-making method in a group of workers should be obtained in cases where the content of the existing working conditions is unilaterally modified by the amendment of the rules of employment (affirmative) and the method of consent;

B. Whether it is not permissible in light of the legal doctrine of speech to dispute as to the unreasonable amendment of the rules of employment without the consent of the worker group when ten years have passed since it did not object to the amendment (negative)

A. In order to unilaterally revise the existing working conditions through the amendment of the rules of employment, consent shall be required by the collective decision-making method of a group of workers to whom the previous rules of employment was applied, and the consent method shall require the labor union if there is a labor union organized by a majority of workers, and if there is no such labor union, the labor union shall consent by a majority of workers at the meeting method, and shall not have the effect as a modification of the rules of employment unless

B. Even if the employer informed the modification of the rules of employment without the consent of the worker group, even though the employer did not object to the modification, it is not permissible in light of the legal doctrine of the gold-Ban, even if the employee did not object to the modification, at the expiration of ten years.

Article 95 of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da15952, 15969, 15976 Decided November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 979)

Plaintiff 1 et al. and 26 Plaintiffs’ Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Byung-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na8366 delivered on April 17, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, after compiling evidence, acknowledged that the defendant Corporation had established the above revised rules of employment for not less than one year with the establishment of May 1980, and had retired officers and employees receive the same payment rate as stated in Table 2-1 of the judgment below, and enacted the above revised rules of employment for the purpose of paying retirement allowances as retirement allowances from July 1 of the same year, including the above revised rules of employment for employees and employees of government-invested institutions around February 1, 1981. The above revised rules of employment for the purpose of changing the above revised rules of employment for employees to disadvantage the above revised rules of employment by retroactively enforcing the revised rules of employment since January 1 of the same year without the consent of the above revised rules of employment for employees as long as there is no possibility that the above revised rules of employment for employees would affect the above revised rules of employment for employees without consent of the majority of the employees, and there is no violation of the above revised rules of employment for employees as well as the above revised rules of employment for employees.

In addition, it is also justified that the court below's decision that the plaintiffs' objection to the amendment of the above remuneration provision was not allowed in light of the legal principles of the Geum-gu. It is also justified that the plaintiffs' objection to the amendment is not allowed since the ten years have passed since the above amendment was known by the defendant Corporation. All of the arguments are groundless.

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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)