[1] Whether management measures can be subject to labor disputes to strengthen the company's competitiveness such as restructuring or merger (affirmative with qualification)

[2] The standards for determining the legitimacy of the entire industrial action where there are many purposes pursuing the industrial action, and some of them are not justified

[3] The case holding that a strike of the Korea Minting and Security Printing Trade Union cannot be justified for its main purpose

[1] Whether to implement corporate restructuring, such as layoff or corporate merger, belongs to a high-level managerial decision by a management body, which is not subject to collective bargaining, in principle, and, barring special circumstances, such as where it is promoted with an urgent managerial necessity or a reasonable reason without any justifiable reason, a trade union is going to go to an industrial action in order to substantially oppose the implementation of the industrial action, the industrial action cannot be justified even if it inevitably entails changes in the status of workers or working conditions.

[2] In a case where there are many other purposes pursuing an industrial action, and some of them are not legitimate, the legitimacy of the industrial action should be determined by the legitimacy of the main or genuine purpose of the industrial action. If it is recognized that the industrial action would not have been conducted if the industrial action had not been conducted for the reason of the unfair demand, the entire industrial action shall be deemed to have no legitimacy.

[3] The case holding that even if it cannot be determined that there was no purpose of improving wages for industrial action by the Korea Minting and Closing Corporation trade union, its primary purpose is to prevent industrial action from being conducted as part of the government's restructuring of public enterprises, and thus, the legitimacy of industrial action cannot be recognized

[1] Article 20 of the Criminal Act; Articles 1, 4, and 37 (1) of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Article 31 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 20 of the Criminal Act; Articles 1, 4, and 37 (1) of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [3] Articles 20 and 314 of the Criminal Act; Articles 1, 4, and 37 (1) of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 99Do5380 decided Feb. 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1290) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7225 decided Jul. 22, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1798) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5204 decided Jan. 21, 1992 (Gong192, 92, 927) Supreme Court Decision 91Da34523 decided May 12, 1992 (Gong192, 1839), Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2871 decided Jun. 26, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 1785)

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Young-chul

Daejeon High Court Decision 2000No194 delivered on June 8, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the instant facts charged is as follows.

Defendant 1 is the head of the affiliated creative branch under the labor union (hereinafter referred to as “labor union”) of the Korea Minting and Security Agency (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”), the representative of the same branch, Defendant 2 as the representative of the same branch, Defendant 3 as the chief of the dispute department of the same branch, Defendant 4 as the chief of the same branch office, and Defendant 4 as the chief of the same branch office.

A. On December 17, 1998, at around 10:00 on December 17, 1998, the Defendants conspired to gather partners to a cafeteria and instigate them to engage in a strike, and around 10:30 on the same day, Defendant 1 closed a water supply valve of bank holders, thereby preventing Defendant 1 from producing a site for about 1:30 minutes, thereby hindering the work of the above maid window by force;

B. Defendant 1

(1) At around 14:00 on the same day, the members of the above Cho Jong-sik did not participate in the work and had them attend a meeting before the due date of construction, and caused members to engage in a strike and participate in various assemblies by force until January 8, 199, thereby hindering the work of the above Cho Jong-young by force;

(2) In collusion with other labor union members, from December 18, 1998 to December 26, 1998, it interfered with the work of the Corporation by force by having partners engage in a strike and conduct a demonstration before the construction work.

2. The judgment of the court below

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court upheld the judgment of the first instance court that acquitted the Defendants on the ground that, as to the facts charged in relation to the remaining industrial action except for the part that the Defendants conspired in collusion with the Defendants to close a water supply valve of the granted and abandoned windows and interfered with the work of the above early operation by force, it did not oppose the Defendants’ major purpose of the industrial action in relation to the consolidation of the industrial action into a series of collective bargaining process between the unions and the construction works that began from February 1998, when considering the legitimacy of the industrial action by the Defendants, the principal purpose of the industrial action was not to oppose the policy of the merger into a light view of the union and the construction works that the Corporation intends to implement as part of the restructuring, but was in the maintenance and improvement of working conditions, such as the improvement of wages, and the opposition to the labor union merged policy was aimed at opposing the dismissal pursuant to Article 28 of the collective agreement providing for the pre-agreement with the labor union in case of dismissal due to an inevitable reason, the Defendants’ purpose of the industrial action is justifiable and the time and procedure and method of the industrial action.

B. In addition, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance convicting the Defendants of this part of the charges on the ground that the Defendants conspired to close a water supply valve in the granted early stage and interfered with the business of the above early stage windows by force, and that the Defendants shut down a water supply valve in accordance with the prior agreement with the construction project to stop a water supply valve at least three hours prior to the commencement of the strike for the purpose of protecting the safety of the granted stage equipment, and that the machinery operation was made in order to prevent the operation of the machinery from being carried out by substitute workers pursuant to Article 140 of the collective agreement, and that it was found not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendants’ act was justifiable in relation to its purpose, the time and procedure of industrial action, the means and method of industrial action, etc., as well as the remaining industrial action,

3. The judgment of this Court

However, this decision of the court below is not acceptable.

A. Whether to implement corporate restructuring, such as layoff or corporate merger, belongs to a high-level managerial decision by a management body, which is subject to collective bargaining, in principle, and, barring special circumstances, such as where it is promoted with an urgent managerial necessity or a reasonable reason without any justifiable reason, a trade union may not recognize the legitimacy of the purpose of the industrial action, even if it inevitably entails changes in the status or working conditions of its workers, even if the implementation is made to oppose the implementation of the industrial action. Meanwhile, in a case where there are various purposes pursuing the industrial action, and some of them are not legitimate, the legitimacy of the purpose of the industrial action should be determined by the legitimacy of the main or genuine purpose, and where it is deemed that the industrial action was not conducted if it did not meet the unfair requirements, the entire industrial action has no legitimacy (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do5380, Feb. 26, 2002, etc.).

B. According to the records, the government-affiliated planning committee prepared a management innovation proposal for the merger of industrial actions with the public enterprise restructuring committee around May 198 as part of the restructuring of the public enterprise, and the Corporation conflict with the planning and budget committee intending to prevent them from 50% reduction of personnel expenses. On the other hand, although the union stated the above circumstances as to the industrial action, it still sees only the previous unreasonable wage reduction plan that can not be accepted by the Corporation. On July 15, 1998 and July 16, 1998, the Defendants participated in the public enterprise restructuring counter-convening with the National Democratic Trade Union Federation, and the National Industrial Actions Committee decided that the industrial action was legitimate by the merger of industrial actions under Article 17 of the Industrial Actions Act, including the above industrial action that the government-invested institutions and the government-invested institutions were unable to negotiate with the industrial action, and the Defendants were able to know that the industrial action was conducted within 19th anniversary of the merger of industrial actions under Article 19 of the Industrial Actions Act.

C. Meanwhile, according to the records, the term "agreement" under Article 28 subparagraph 3 of the collective agreement, which was concluded by the Corporation and the Trade Union and the Labor Union and entered into force at the time of the above industrial action, provides that "at the time of dismissal of union members due to the reorganization or the consolidation of workplace organizations," the right to personnel management for workers is the original employer, and Article 21 of the collective agreement provides that "at the time of reorganization or the replacement of union members," and Article 22 (1) provides that "the Corporation shall establish and operate a reasonable and fair personnel management system and thereby ensure fairness in personnel management for employees: Provided, That if the union has an objection to the results of personnel management, it may submit its opinion," the term "agreement" under Article 28 subparagraph 3 of the above collective agreement is not to limit the dismissal of union members pursuant to the intention consistent with the construction work and the labor union, and it can be interpreted that the above collective agreement is reasonable to provide opinions in accordance with Article 20 subparagraph 4 of the above collective agreement, and it can be interpreted that it will be justified by considering that the above opinion of labor dispute action in accordance with Article 20.

D. In addition, according to the records, even if the labor union agreed to suspend the operation of the machinery by blocking the supply valve at least three hours prior to commencing the strike for the protection of machinery safety at around 194, it shall be deemed as the premise of a legitimate industrial action. Article 104 of the collective agreement provides that "the Corporation shall not employ or substitute persons other than the workers of the workplace during the industrial action." Thus, it shall not be deemed that the substitute work of non-members of the workplace in question or union members who do not participate in the industrial action shall not be prohibited. Thus, the defendants suspended the use of the supply valve to prepare the strike with no legitimacy for the main purpose of preventing the merger. Thus, the part on which the defendants conspired to stop the operation of the site production of the above early-of-life windows by closing the supply valve at the time of the supply valve for the above early-of-life windows." In addition, the defendants cannot be viewed as justifiable in terms of the remaining means and methods of the industrial action, as well as the remaining purpose of the industrial action.

E. Nevertheless, the court below determined that the main purpose of the industrial action in this case by the defendants was to improve wages. Accordingly, this constitutes a case where the court below erred in finding facts as to the main purpose of the industrial action in violation of the rules of evidence or erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimacy of the industrial action, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)