A. Whether changing the form of service is illegal or monthly right without taking any preservative measure against the reduction of allowances in an arbitration award (negative)

(b) The term of validity of an arbitration award with no fixed period.

(c) Grounds for dissatisfaction with respect to an arbitration award.

A. The allowances paid for overtime work, night work, or holiday work under Article 46 of the Labor Standards Act are the premium paid for work, and if the actual working hours are reduced due to changes in the form of work, it is natural in light of the nature of the wage that the payment of allowances is reduced accordingly. Thus, even if it is necessary to maintain the previous actual wage level because the actual income of the workers is reduced due to changes in the form of work, it is a matter to be resolved in the procedure of determining the specific amount of wages, and it is not illegal or unlawful to change the form of work without taking measures to compensate for the said decrease in the amount of allowances in the arbitration award.

(b)the validity of an arbitration award with no term fixed shall be the same as that of a collective agreement.

C. According to the provisions of Article 38(2) of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, a party may file an administrative litigation if the arbitration award is found to have been erroneous or inconsistent with the law or the monthly interest. Thus, the party may lodge an objection against the arbitration award only when the procedure is unlawful or unlawful due to a violation of the Labor Standards Act, etc., or its contents are not the object of a dispute between the parties, or when the arbitration award is made on the ground that it was made on a monthly basis or on the ground that it was based on an unlawful or monthly interest with respect to any part exceeding the scope of the dispute between the parties without justifiable grounds, and the grounds that the arbitration award is merely disadvantageous to either

(c)Article 38(2) of the Trade Union Adjustment Act; Article 39(2) of the same Act; Article 35 of the Trade Union Act;

C. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu433 delivered on March 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 714)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Attorneys Yoon Jong-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Seoul Metropolitan Government subway Corporation's Attorney Ham- business

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu10564 delivered on July 18, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 1.

The allowance paid for overtime work, night work, or holiday work under Article 46 of the Labor Standards Act is a premium paid as a consideration for work, and if the actual working hours are reduced due to changes in the work form, it is natural in light of the nature of the wage.

Even if it is necessary to maintain the previous actual wage level due to the decrease in the amount of the above allowances due to the change in the work form, it is a matter to be resolved in the procedure of determining the specific amount of wages, and it is illegal to change the work form without taking any measures to compensate for the decrease in the above allowances in the arbitration award in this case or it cannot be deemed as the monthly right.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by either misapprehending the plaintiff's assertion, incomplete hearing, or omission of judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal 2.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the content of the adjustment of the quota and working hours of the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter the intervenor) among the arbitration award in this case was more unfavorable than the criteria for calculation of the working hours of the crew in the subway train in Seoul Special Metropolitan City. According to the evidence No. 4, No. 5, and No. 25-3 of the evidence No. 25, the court below stipulated that the provisions related to the subway transportation business, such as the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Installation of Transportation Business in Seoul Special Metropolitan City applied as of December 31, 1983, are applied only until the time when the intervenor enacted and implemented the relevant provisions, but the intervenor has already enforced the rules of employment, etc.

Examining the evidence of the above fact-finding in light of the records, the above evidence Nos. 4 and 5 are nothing more than those of the revised rules of employment (No. 12-4) and the articles of incorporation with respect to subway transportation business among the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 25-3 (No. 25-3 of the judgment of the court below). Since it is apparent that the above rules of employment could not be the basis for calculating the number of employees and adjusting the working hours of employees at the time of the arbitration award of this case, the above judgment below is erroneous since the above rules of employment could not be the basis for calculating the number of employees and adjusting the working hours of employees after the arbitration award of this case. However, according to the records, since the plaintiff's provision such as the revised rules of employment (No. 12-4 of evidence No. 12) and construction plan was already implemented at the time of the arbitration award of this case, the plaintiff's crew members of the domestic subway of this case did not affect the above determination of the court below.

3. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 3.

According to the records, the fixed rate of the instant fixed rate allowance is to improve the wage gap and the continuous increase in personnel expenses among workers, and also includes the purpose of enhancing the stability of wages. The fixed rate allowance according to the arbitration award of this case is not only higher than the original allowance to be paid, but also the validity term of the arbitration award without the fixed period is the same as that of the collective agreement, and it is not fixed as the fixed rate allowance as provided in the arbitration award of this case. Thus, the fixed rate of the instant fixed rate allowance cannot be said to be changed disadvantageous to the worker.

As pointed out in the judgment of the court below, there is no error of misconception of facts or incomplete hearing due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no reason for this issue.

4. We examine the ground of appeal No. 4.

According to the records, while the plaintiff and the intervenor have negotiated on the improvement of the organization and remuneration system of the intervenor corporation since 1987, the plaintiff and the intervenor prepared an improvement proposal until December 30, 198 with respect to the change of the form of service and the remuneration system which were not considered to be resolved in the agreement angle of October 5, 1988, but failed to prepare an improvement proposal within the above period. After the plaintiff's industrial action began, the intervenor filed an application for arbitration, and the defendant made an first arbitration award from May 31, 1989 with respect to the change of the form of service and remuneration system as of March 29, 1989, and the first arbitration award was made from June 1, 1989, but the plaintiff and the intervenor finally failed to implement the arbitration award within the above period, the subject matters of the arbitration award continued to have been postponed, and all of the above workers' wages cannot be considered to have been considered to have been disadvantageous in light of the following special circumstances.

In this case, the plaintiff asserted that the base time of the fixed amount of allowances was determined on April 20, 1989 that the wage increase under the wage agreement in 1989 was not reflected, and that the execution time of the fixed amount of allowances provision was disadvantageous to workers, and that it was unlawful or unjust, since the execution time of the above unfavorable fixed amount provision was earlier than other financial provisions, the court below rejected it on the ground that the change in the form of work requires a certain period of preparation, such as the employment of employees and the placement of education, and it is recognized that there is only a grace period. Therefore, the court below did not state the decision as to the argument that the fixed amount of allowances was disadvantageous to workers by setting the base time of the fixed amount of allowances at April 20, 199. However, according to the records, the wage agreement in 1989 was concluded on November 1, 198 after the arbitration award in this case, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the above ruling of evidence.

5. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 5.

According to the provisions of Article 38 (2) of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, a party may file an administrative litigation if the arbitration award is found to be unlawful or to be based on the monthly interest. Thus, the party concerned may lodge an objection against the arbitration award only when the procedure is unlawful or unlawful due to the violation of the Labor Standards Act, etc., or the contents thereof are not the object of a dispute between the parties, or when the arbitration award is made on the grounds that it is unlawful or based on monthly interest, such as the case where the arbitration award was made on the basis that it was made on a monthly interest with respect to the part exceeding the scope of dispute between the parties, and that the arbitration award is not allowed simply because

According to the records, it is evident that the content of the arbitration award in this case does not lower working conditions on the basis of the criteria set forth in the Labor Standards Act. However, the plaintiff's assertion does not meet the criteria set forth in the Labor Standards Act, and there is no other ground to believe that the arbitration award in this case was made or was based on monthly rights. Thus, the judgment of the court below is purported as above, so there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in

This paper is without merit.

6. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)