Whether it constitutes an unfair labor practice in a case where a disciplinary action is taken on the ground that it is not a justifiable act for trade union affairs, but for other reasons (affirmative)

An employer’s disciplinary action against a worker is not a legitimate act for the worker’s trade union affairs, but rather a legitimate act for the worker’s trade union, if the purpose was to prevent the worker’s activities by misunderstanding the trade union organized by the said worker, then it constitutes an unfair labor practice as provided by Article 39 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act, based on the legitimate act for the worker’s work, such as the trade union organization.

Article 39 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union Act

Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu12174 delivered on June 8, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the records of the decision of the court below, we accept the fact-finding of the court below on the grounds that the plaintiff company's dismissal of the non-party 1, who is a public official employee's apartment trade union, was in violation of the agreement that the non-party 1, who is the head of the above apartment management office of the plaintiff company, newly set up a signboard, and dealt with it without consultation with the non-party 1. However, the non-party 1's dismissal of the non-party 1 on the ground that the non-party 1's dismissal of the above signboard constitutes an unfair labor practice under Article 39 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union Act because the non-party 1 did not constitute a legitimate act for the reason that the non-party 1 did not interfere with the non-party 1's work for the reason that the non-party 1 did not constitute a legitimate act for the reason that the plaintiff company's dismissal of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 did not constitute a legitimate act for the reason that it did not constitute an act of removal of the plaintiff 1's labor union.

Therefore, there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below from the opposite position.

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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)