In a case where an employer takes disciplinary action against a worker for various grounds of disciplinary action, the method of determining whether the disciplinary action is legitimate in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the review decision made by the National Labor Relations Commission on the

An employer shall not, without any justifiable reason, dismiss, lay off, suspend, transfer, reduce wages, or take other disciplinary measures (hereinafter referred to as “unfair dismissal, etc.”) against a worker (Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act. If an employer makes a unfair dismissal, etc. against a worker, an employee may file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission (Article 28(1) of the Labor Standards Act), and an employer or a worker who is dissatisfied with an order for remedy or decision of dismissal by a local Labor Relations Commission may file an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (Article 31(1) of the Labor Standards Act). In addition, an employer or a worker may file an administrative suit against a decision of reexamination by the National Labor Relations Commission in accordance with the Administrative Litigation Act (Article

The procedures for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. are examined as to whether the specific facts alleged to be unfair dismissal, etc. are unfair dismissal, etc., and if the dismissal is deemed to be unfair dismissal, etc., the specific facts alleged to be unfair dismissal, etc. shall be examined.

In addition, since the subject matter of the lawsuit filed by the National Labor Relations Commission on the application for remedy against unfair dismissal, etc. is the illegality of the judgment in itself, it is necessary to examine whether the specific facts alleged by unfair dismissal, etc. constitute unfair dismissal, etc., and to consider the illegality of the judgment in the retrial. On the other hand, whether there is justifiable reason in the disciplinary action against workers should be determined by the grounds for disciplinary action, etc.

In full view of the above relevant provisions regarding relief procedures such as unfair dismissal, the subject matter of the lawsuit seeking revocation of a retrial, the method of deliberation, and the grounds for disciplinary action subject to a review, etc., the disciplinary committee, etc. should examine whether the disciplinary action was legitimate by the grounds for disciplinary action based on which the disciplinary action was based in order to determine the legitimacy of the disciplinary action. Therefore, in a case of disciplinary action on the grounds of multiple grounds for disciplinary action, the determination of whether the disciplinary action was legitimate by examining all the grounds for disciplinary action other than those recognized as the grounds for disciplinary action by

Articles 23(1), 28(1), and 31(1) and (2) of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16684 delivered on March 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1126) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu15718 delivered on June 13, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 2003Du902 Delivered on February 27, 2004

Plaintiff (Attorney Ba-ok et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (former 2014: Samsung C&T Co., Ltd., and the trade name before the 2015 amendment: Ilksung Co., Ltd. (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Lee Jae-in et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu47374 decided February 4, 2015

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant supplementary intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Determination on grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. An employer shall not, without good cause, dismiss, lay off, suspend, transfer, reduce wages, or take other disciplinary measures (hereinafter “unfair dismissal, etc.”) against a worker (Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act. If an employer makes an unfair dismissal, etc. against a worker, an employee may file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission (Article 28(1) of the Labor Standards Act), and an employer or employee who is dissatisfied with an order for remedy or dismissal decision issued by the Regional Labor Relations Commission may file an application for reexamination again with the National Labor Relations Commission (Article 31(1) of the Labor Standards Act). In addition, an employer or employee may file an administrative suit against a decision on reexamination made by the National Labor Relations Commission pursuant to the Administrative Litigation Act (Article 31(2) of

The procedure for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. is to examine whether the specific facts alleged to be unfair dismissal, etc. constitute unfair dismissal, etc., and to determine the appropriate method of remedy when it is deemed unfair dismissal, etc., and the specific facts alleged to be unfair dismissal, etc. are subject to review (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu15718, Jun. 13, 1997, etc.).

In addition, since the subject matter of a lawsuit filed by the National Labor Relations Commission on the application for remedy against unfair dismissal, etc. is illegality in the judgment of retrial itself, it is necessary to examine whether the specific facts alleged by unfair dismissal, etc. constitute unfair dismissal, etc. and consider whether the judgment of retrial is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du902, Feb. 27, 2004, etc.). Meanwhile, whether there is justifiable reason for disciplinary action against workers should be determined by the grounds for disciplinary action, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1684, Mar. 14, 197, etc.).

In full view of the above relevant provisions of relief procedures such as unfair dismissal, the subject matter of litigation seeking revocation of review, the method of review, and the grounds for disciplinary action subject to review, etc., in order to determine whether a disciplinary action based on the grounds for disciplinary action was justifiable, the disciplinary committee, etc. should examine whether the disciplinary action was justifiable. Therefore, in a case where a disciplinary action was taken on the grounds of multiple grounds for disciplinary action, other than those recognized as the grounds for disciplinary action by the National Labor Relations Commission, the determination of whether a disciplinary action was legitimate should be made through a whole review of the grounds for disciplinary action other

B. The lower court acknowledged the following facts.

(1) Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) took disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) for three months on the ground of the Plaintiff’s act of distributing the instant printed matter (hereinafter “instant disciplinary ground”) and the Intervenor’s act of defamation by publication of the Plaintiff’s name and publication of news articles (hereinafter “instant disciplinary ground”).

(2) On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiff and Samsung Trade Union asserted that the instant disciplinary action constituted an unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practice, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed all the application for remedy on November 6, 2012.

(3) On December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff and Samsung Trade Union were dissatisfied with the above dismissal decision, and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on December 20, 2012. On March 5, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission: (a) acknowledged that only the first disciplinary ground falls under the grounds for disciplinary action; (b) dismissed all applications for reexamination on the ground that the determination of disciplinary action is appropriate; and (c) it does not constitute unfair labor practices under Article 81 Subparag. 1 of the Trade Union

C. Based on such facts, the lower court determined that the Intervenor’s assertion that the grounds for the second disciplinary action should be deliberated and determined even on the grounds for the second disciplinary action in the revocation lawsuit of the instant decision on reexamination was not permitted by adding a new grounds that are not recognized as identical to the basic grounds for the disposition of the National Labor Relations Commission. In so doing, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have committed misconduct, such as the grounds for the second disciplinary action, in light of the Plaintiff’s announcement of the name of the Samsung Trade Union in the name of the Intervenor, or the background leading up to the interview with the media, and the purpose and details of the interview, even if it should be deliberated and determined as to the recognition of the grounds for the second disciplinary action in the revocation lawsuit of the instant decision on reexamination

First of all, the lower court’s primary decision is that the Intervenor took the instant disciplinary action on the ground of the first and second disciplinary grounds, and the lower court should have deliberated the second disciplinary grounds in addition to the first disciplinary grounds recognized by the Central Labor Relations Commission as the grounds for the disciplinary action in the instant reexamination decision. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject of deliberation and determination of a litigation seeking revocation of a petition seeking relief, such as unfair dismissal, etc.

Next, we examine the lower court’s assumptive judgment. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the lower court’s determination on the grounds for disciplinary action No. 2 is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical

As long as the court below’s as deeming that the ground for disciplinary action No. 2 is not recognized, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as seen above in the judgment below, but it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for appeal on this point is with merit.

2. Determination on grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

The lower court determined that the act of distributing the instant printed materials by the Plaintiff, etc., the chairman of the Samsung Trade Union, constitutes legitimate trade union activities, and that the instant disciplinary action constitutes an unfair labor practice under Article 81 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act, which gives disadvantages to the relevant worker on the ground that the worker performed justifiable acts for the labor union

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine, such determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so determining, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of legitimate trade union activities and intent to engage in unfair labor

3. Conclusion

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 Poe-young (Presiding Justice)