(a) Legal nature and method of modification of the employment rules;

(b) Validity of personal consent to alteration of the rules of employment;

A. Since the Labor Standards Act enforced the preparation of the Labor Standards Act for the purpose of protecting workers and grants the legal nature thereof to workers, it requires the consent of the group decision-making method of workers who were subject to the previous rules of employment in order to disadvantageously revise the rules of employment to workers.

(b) It shall not be effective as to workers who have consented individually to disadvantageous changes to the rules of employment without the above consent of the worker group;

Articles 94 and 95 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 36 of the Trade Union Act

Plaintiff’s attorney-at-law conciliation system

[Judgment of the court below] Defendant 1 and 1 others

Seoul High Court Decision 76Na2596 delivered on February 10, 1977

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's defendant's attorney's opinion on January 5, 1972 through 1240-5, 1240-314 special measures on the calculation of retirement allowance (the number of payment days calculated in accordance with the previous rules of retirement allowance multiplied by the average wage of 5,500,00 won) for the period of service after the last day of the month, which is the most close to 5,500,00 won, as the number of payment days after the last day of the month, shall be 30 days per year, notwithstanding the previous provisions of the previous rules of employment, the above rules of employment shall be applied to the above rules of employment, regardless of the opinion of the majority of the union or the workers' representative without reporting it to the labor office, and the plaintiff unilaterally changed the working conditions under the previous rules of employment, which are the contents of the employment contract, which is the retirement allowance under the previous rules of employment, and thus, rejected the defendant's opinion on the change of the rules of employment or the labor union.

However, the rules of employment are prepared to uniformly establish the rules of employment for workers in a workplace based on the business management right, and it is deemed that the Labor Standards Act requires the employer to prepare and amend the rules of employment as part of the purpose of protecting and improving their basic lives based on the reality of subordinate labor relations. Therefore, in principle, in order to unilaterally change the contents of the existing rules of employment through the revision of the rules of employment, consent should be required by the method of collective decision-making of the workers who are subject to the previous rules of employment. If there is a labor union organized by a majority of the workers, it is not effective as an amendment of the rules of employment without consent of the majority of the workers. Thus, it is not effective for the employer to unilaterally change the contents of the existing rules of employment to workers without consent of the employer. Thus, the revision of the rules of employment to the extent that the employer does not have a superior effect on the basis of the above rules of employment as well as on the basis of the principle of protection of rights and working conditions of workers as an equal status under the Labor Standards Act. Thus, the amendment of the rules of employment cannot be deemed as null and void.

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the amendment of the rules of employment and the validity of a collective agreement, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the judgment is reversed and remanded.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)