2012Nu13872 Revocation of corrective order in a collective agreement

National Public Transport and Social Services Trade Union

The Head of Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap20628 Decided April 19, 2012

September 17, 2014

October 29, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The corrective order issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on May 3, 201 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant corrective order”) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

[] The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked, and the part of the corrective order of this case shall be revoked.

[Defendant] The part of the first instance judgment against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim on this part is dismissed.

1. cite the reasoning of the first instance judgment;

The reasons presented by the court concerning this case are as follows, except for the part concerning the part concerning the full-time officer (Article 13(1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance) on the dispatch of superior organizations (Article 13(1) of the judgment of the court of first instance from the fourth to the fourth to the sixth (Article 16). Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be corrected;

5) Determination on the assertion on the full-time officer assigned to a higher-level organization (Article 13(1)

A) Facts of recognition

(1) The defendant's corrective order in this part

The defendant issued a corrective order to correct this provision lawfully on the ground that Article 13(1) of the collective agreement of this case includes the activities of higher-level organizations unrelated to the business place in question.

(2) Relevant contents of the instant collective agreement

The relevant provisions of the instant collective agreement are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 18 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

In full view of the language and text of Article 13(1) of the collective agreement of this case and related provisions, Article 13(1) of the same Act concerning the method to fill vacancies and the treatment of those who become the full-time officer, where a vacancy occurs in the full-time officer of a superior organization due to the full-time officer's taking office of the superior organization, and the treatment of those who are dispatched to the superior organization is not included in the contents of the treatment of those who are dispatched to the superior organization, and it is evident that the treatment of those who are dispatched to the superior organization is prescribed in Article 13(2) of the same collective agreement. In other words, the fact that the full-time officer dispatched to the superior organization may be subject to the exemption of working hours is not based on Article 13(1) of the same collective agreement, but because Article 11(2) applies, it is difficult to be subject to the application of Article 10-2

Therefore, the Defendant’s corrective order ordering correction of Article 13(1) of the collective agreement of this case, on the premise that Article 13(1) of the collective agreement of this case includes the activities of a superior organization unrelated to the pertinent business establishment, is unlawful without examining further.

Conclusion

The part concerning Articles 12(1) and 79 of the collective agreement of this case among the claims in this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the part concerning Article 13(1) shall be quoted in the reasoning. The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in conclusion. The appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed as they are without merit

The presiding judge, leap division

Judges Noh Jeong-il

Judges Dok-woo