Requirements for establishing unfair labor practices under Article 39 (1) of the Trade Union Act, and assertion on such requirements.Liability for admission (=worker)

In order to establish unfair labor practices as stipulated in Article 39 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union Act, "worker's legitimate act for the business of the trade union" should be done, and the company should dismiss the worker on the ground of such act, and the assertion of the same fact and burden of proof shall be the worker who asserts that it is an unfair labor practice.

Article 39 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union Act, Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Burden of Proof)

Plaintiff

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Attorney Lee Byung-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu136 delivered on February 7, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 39 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union Act provides that "the dismissal of a worker or disadvantage to the worker on the ground that the worker has joined or attempted to join a trade union, or has attempted to organize a trade union, or has performed any other lawful act for the operation of a trade union" as a type of unfair labor practices by the employer. Thus, in order to establish unfair labor practices under Article 39 of the Trade Union Act, the "justifiable act for the operation of a trade union" must be the case where the worker has dismissed the worker on the ground of such act, and the company shall be the case where the worker has been dismissed on the ground

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below decided on January 1, 1987 that the plaintiff, who was employed by the intervenor joining the defendant joining the company as technical staff member and worked in the production division and press room, caused bodily injury to the intervenor by the act of Nonparty Park Jong-do, which caused the intervenor's emotional security on August 9, 1989, and that the plaintiff's above act constituted disciplinary action against the intervenor on the 19th of the same month on the ground that the plaintiff's above act constitutes a ground for disciplinary action under the collective agreement and personnel management regulations of the intervenor, and that the plaintiff's dismissal disposition against the intervenor was not a ground for disciplinary action against the intervenor's active trade union activity. Thus, the court below held that the plaintiff's dismissal disposition against the intervenor was not a ground for disciplinary action against the intervenor's affirmative action against the intervenor, and that the plaintiff's dismissal disposition against the plaintiff's intervenor was not a usual member of the intervenor's trade union, or that the plaintiff's remaining opinion against the intervenor's union member's disciplinary action against the intervenor's labor union's member's remaining grounds for dismissal.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is correct, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, or by erroneous interpretation and application of collective agreements. There is no reason to argue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)