208Na 13392 Wages

1. P1 mother (53 years old, remaining) and 7 others;

[Judgment of the court below]

XX Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

Law Firm Gyeong-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

Busan District Court Decision 2007Gauri175029 Decided July 8, 2008

December 11, 2008

January 8, 2009

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. All appeals costs are borne by the Plaintiffs.

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff P1 37,612 won, 190,891 won to the plaintiff P2, 321,287 won to the plaintiff P3, 233,031 won to the plaintiff P4, 15,257 won to the plaintiff P5, 35, 308 won to the plaintiff P6, 478,826 won to the plaintiff P7, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff reduced its claim in the trial).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are the employees of Defendant Company, and are members of the Korean Metal Trade Union XX Industrial Branch.

B. On November 15, 2003, the Plaintiffs’ weekly working hours pursuant to a collective agreement between the National Metal Trade Union and the Defendant (i.e., 08:0 to 17:00) are from 08:0 to 17:00 (i.e., heavy working hours from 12:0 to 13:00). Night working hours are from 22:0 to 06:00 of the following day (i.e., night working hours from 22:0 to 23:00). However, the Plaintiffs were paid during the night working hours for one hour in addition to the above ordinary working hours, and the Plaintiffs started to work outside the ordinary working hours for 17:00 on a daily basis. Meanwhile, when the Defendant’s business place comes to 17:00, the workers who are to retire while going to work outside the working hours, and the workers who are to work outside the working hours began to work outside the ordinary working hours at 17:10 p.m.

C. According to a collective agreement concluded on July 28, 2001 by the National Metal Trade Union and the Defendant, the Defendant paid an amount equivalent to 50% of the hourly wage for overtime work of its union members as an overtime work allowance. However, upon entering into a negotiation agreement between the National Metal Trade Union and the Defendant on November 15, 2003, the National Metal Trade Union and the Defendant paid an amount equivalent to 100% of the hourly wage for overtime work (overtime work) as an overtime work (overtime work) by amending the above provision of overtime work allowances to pay an amount equivalent to 100% of the hourly wage for overtime work (overtime work).

D. After the above agreement, the Defendant paid the union members allowances of an amount equivalent to 50% of the Si wage for overtime work from 17:00 to 18:00 (e.g., payment of overtime work for which overtime work has been extended from 17:0 to 18:00). For overtime work exceeding one hour, 50% of the Si wage for the first time, and 100% of the Si wage for the additional hours exceeding one hour (e.g., payment of overtime work for which the sum calculated by adding an amount calculated by 17:0 to 19:00% of the Si wage for overtime work from 17:0 to 19:00).

E. As to this, the plaintiffs argued that "one or more hour work" is a concept that includes one hour, and that 100% of the hourly wage should be paid for the whole hours of overtime work including one hour (e.g., one hour overtime work from 17:00 to 18:00, one hour overtime work, and two hours overtime work from 17:0 to 19:00, two hours overtime work in accordance with the agreement on overtime work, which is calculated as "one hour overtime work" and "one hour overtime work from 17:0 to 100, two hours overtime work." On the other hand, the defendant demanded the defendant to refuse to pay overtime work allowances, and the defendant paid overtime work allowances to prevent any confusion in the above part of the fixed hours work hours in accordance with the agreement on overtime work from being entered into on May 28, 2004.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

In the interpretation of the provision on the instant allowances, “not less than one hour” is a concept that includes one hour, and with respect to overtime work, 100% of the Si wage shall be paid for the entire overtime work hours including one hour, but the Defendant has to pay 500,000,000 in a lump sum for the first hour overtime work, so the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs overtime work allowances, such as the purport that the Plaintiffs did not receive overtime work from March 2004 to May 2004 (in light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiffs do not intend to additionally seek 50% of the Si wage unpaid only for the first time overtime work, but rather seek 50% of the Si wage unpaid for the portion unpaid for the first time out of overtime work).

3. Determination

A. Accordingly, the issue of this case is whether the daily overtime work allowances for the first time are 50% or 100% of the urgency when the plaintiffs worked for more than one hour a day (including one hour a day) and it is a key issue.

B. The facts stated in the agreement that "the part taken by the Korean Metal Trade Union and the defendant recognized" in order to prevent confusion in relation to the interpretation of the provisions of this case on May 28, 2004 are the same as mentioned above. In light of this, the phrase "Recognizing the part taken by the above" should be deemed to have recognized the defendant's existing measures that calculated the members' allowances for overtime work at the rate of 50% of the initial one hour and paid them to the union members. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot seek overtime work allowances, such as the purport of the claim by the defendant (the plaintiffs claim that the above phrase should be interpreted to the purport that they recognize the agreement on November 15, 2003, which stipulates that the payment of overtime work by adding the rate of 10% to the rate of 10% for overtime work should be made, but the above agreement itself cannot be deemed to be "measures" per itself).

Accordingly, the plaintiffs' agreement on May 28, 2004 between the Korean Metal Trade Union and the defendant is null and void since the trade union agreed to waive the plaintiffs' right to claim payment of allowances under a collective agreement between the employer and the employer without individual consent or authorization of the workers. However, such agreement shall be deemed to be an agreement at the level of resolving disputes as to whether the plaintiffs' right to claim payment of allowances claimed in the interpretation of the provision of the allowance in this case (as seen earlier, there is no right to claim payment of allowances claimed by the plaintiffs in the interpretation of the provision of the allowance in this case). Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

C. In addition, there is no express expression that 10% of the total working hours shall be paid for 10% of the allowance provision of this case. ② In light of the fact that the plaintiffs have engaged in overtime work at least one hour, as alleged by the plaintiffs, if the provision of this case is interpreted as 'one hour or more', the phrase 'one hour or more' can be interpreted as 'one hour or more' (in the case of overtime work at least one hour, 'one hour or more' can be paid 10% of the total working hours as alleged by the plaintiffs. Ultimately, according to the plaintiffs' assertion, the above phrase 10% of the total working hours cannot be interpreted as 'one time or more' if it is interpreted as 'one time or more', 'one time or more' should be interpreted as 'one time or more, and 'one time or more' should be interpreted as 'one time or more' if it is interpreted as 'one time or more' in light of the opposite interpretation of the above phrase 'one time or more'.

D. In addition, if the Plaintiffs were to engage in overtime work after ten minutes of work, the fact that the Plaintiffs started to work from 17:10 to 10 minutes of work as seen earlier. On November 15, 2003, collective agreements between the National Metal Trade Union and the Defendant grant two hours of work or more as paid hours of work (from 17:00 to 17:30), while there is a provision that recognizes as paid hours of work between 2:00 to 23:00 as paid hours of work (Article 30 of the collective agreements) on the other hand, if the Plaintiffs were to have paid 10:0 hours of work from 10:0 to 17:10 hours of work, and there is no explicit provision that the Plaintiffs were to have paid 10% of the paid hours of work from 10:0 to 10% of the first 10% of the paid hours of work (see Article 36 of the collective agreements) on the premise that the Plaintiffs were to have paid 10% of the paid hours of work.

E. Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case are dismissed due to the lack of merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and associate judge;

Judges Kim Gung-han

Judge Choi Sang-soo