Plaintiff

Of the litigation of a trade union, the National Labor Relations Commission of April 12, 2017, central 2017 fair2-4/buno19 (combined).

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. The Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) employs approximately 6,920 full-time workers and engages in the manufacture and sale of cars, such as Daejeon Factory, Geumsan Factory, Central Research Institute, etc.

B. The Plaintiff A trade union (hereinafter “Plaintiff trade union”) is a company-level trade union consisting of higher-level organizations C, and is composed of approximately 4,150 workers belonging to the Plaintiff company.

Plaintiff

On November 4, 2015, a trade union was decided as a representative bargaining trade union at the negotiation unit of Plaintiff Company.

C. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor trade union”) is an industrial trade union established for the organization of workers engaged in the field of metal industry, and its superior organization is D.

From November 27, 2014, the Intervenor Trade Union established a branch of the Plaintiff Company A, and approximately 310 workers belonging to the Plaintiff Company belong to the said branch.

From June 14, 2016 to July 18, 2016, the Plaintiffs continued to conduct collective bargaining to conclude a collective agreement in 2016 and concluded a collective agreement in August 9, 2016, and drafted an agreement for wage adjustment and renewal of a collective agreement.

(hereinafter referred to as “collective agreement in 2016”). (e)

On November 7, 2016, the Intervenor trade union violated the obligation of fair representation because it did not gather the opinion of the Intervenor trade union in the course of collective bargaining to conclude a collective agreement in 2016 and did not provide the Intervenor trade union with information on collective bargaining.

In the process of concluding and implementing collective agreements in 2016, the Plaintiffs violated the duty of fair representation by failing to allocate the limit of exemption from working hours to the Intervenor’s trade union and the full-time officer of the trade union, and not providing the office and bulletin board

The Plaintiffs shall only be the anniversary of the establishment of a trade union under Article 9(1) of the collective agreement in 2016.