A. Purport of Article 35(1) and (2) of the Trade Union Act that limits the validity of a collective agreement

(b) If a previous collective agreement provides for an automatic extension agreement, whether the extension is limited to three months under Article 35 (3) of the same Act (negative)

C. The validity of the provision that provides for the automatic renewal of a collective agreement without notification of the amendment or destruction thereof within a certain period upon the expiration of the period specified in the collective agreement (=effective), and in such a case, whether the period of validity is restricted under Article 35(1) and (2) of the same Act (affirmative)

(d) The case holding that disciplinary action taken without the participation of the disciplinary member on the part of a trade union is invalid on the ground that the disciplinary action taken without the participation of the disciplinary member on the part of the trade union, upon the refusal of a trade union's request

A. The provision of the Trade Union Act that limits the term of validity of a collective agreement would result in unfairly binding the parties, as it does not adapt to changes in the social and economic conditions of the changed industrial society, and thereby would go against the purpose of maintaining appropriate working conditions and promoting the stability of labor-management relations under the collective agreement. Thus, it would be inappropriate to limit the term of validity to a certain extent to the point of time and to adjust the contents of the collective agreement in a concrete and reasonable manner.

B. Article 35(3) of the same Act provides that when collective bargaining for the renewal of an agreement is in progress after the expiration of the term of validity of the previous collective agreement, the former collective agreement shall remain in force. Thus, if the former collective agreement provides for automatic extension agreement, the said provision shall not apply, but shall not be deemed to be valid only for the period of three months as provided for in the said provision after the original term of validity expires.

C. When a collective agreement expires, the parties’ conclusion of an extension or renewal agreement of the agreement is the same as that of the previous collective agreement, and is naturally effective, and it is not automatically renewed if there is no notification of the amendment or destruction of the agreement within a given period of time at the expiration of the collective agreement, it does not restrict or deprive the parties of their right to conclude the collective agreement after the expiration of the term of validity. However, the new term of validity is subject to restrictions under Article 35(1) and (2) of the same Act

(d) The case holding that disciplinary action taken without the participation of the disciplinary member on the part of a trade union is invalid on the ground that the disciplinary action taken without the participation of the disciplinary member on the part of the trade union, upon the refusal of a trade union's request demanding

(c)Article 35 of the Trade Union Act; Article 34 of the same Act; Articles 27 and 95 of the Labor Standards Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8364 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1619) (Gong1619 delivered on February 9, 1993) 92Da27119 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong191, 212)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Medical Corporation, Dong Medical Foundation, Attorney Yoon Il-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na3032 delivered on June 4, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The supplemental appellate brief shall be considered to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief.

On the first ground for appeal

1. Article 35(1), Article 35(2) of the Trade Union Act provides that the term of validity of a collective agreement shall not be set in the collective agreement for wages, one year for other matters than wages, and two years for other matters shall not be set in the collective agreement, and if the term of validity is not set in the collective agreement for other matters or exceeds the above term, such term of validity shall be two years (one year for wage agreements). Paragraph (3) of the above provision provides that even after the said term of validity expires, if a new collective agreement is not concluded even if both parties continue to engage in collective bargaining before and after the expiration of the term of validity, they shall remain effective for three months from the expiry date of the term of validity. The purport of the above Paragraph (3) is to respect the union, and if both parties intend to engage in collective agreement without destroying the collective agreement and to prevent the appearance of the state of non-agreement in the collective agreement renewal as much as possible.

In principle, the term of validity of a collective agreement may be left to the autonomy of the parties to the agreement. However, the provision that limits the term of validity of the collective agreement would result in unfairly binding the parties because it could not adapt to changes in the social and economic conditions of the industrial society changing so long as the term of validity of the collective agreement is too long, and thus would go against the purpose of maintaining appropriate working conditions under the collective agreement and promoting stability in labor-management relations. Therefore, the term of validity of the collective agreement would be limited to a certain scope to the extent that it would be appropriate and reasonable to fit the contents of the collective agreement in a timely and concrete manner.

In addition, Article 35(3) of the Trade Union Act provides that when collective bargaining is in progress for the renewal of collective bargaining even after the term of validity expires in the previous collective agreement, the former collective agreement shall remain in force. Thus, if the previous collective agreement provides for such automatic extension agreement, the above provision does not apply to the previous collective agreement, and it shall not be deemed valid only for three months after the term of validity expires (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8364, Apr. 14, 1992).

2. As such, limiting the term of validity of a collective agreement under Article 35(1) and (2) of the Trade Union Act is intended to prevent a collective agreement which no longer meets the circumstances from continuing its validity for a long time against the parties’ will. Thus, it is naturally effective for the parties to enter into an extension or renewal agreement at the time of the expiration of the collective agreement as it is the same as a new collective agreement with the contents of the previous collective agreement, and it is naturally valid, and it is not a restriction or deprivation of the parties’ right to enter into the collective agreement after the expiration of the term of validity, unless the parties’ amendment or abolition of the agreement are notified within a given period of time. However, the new term of validity is subject to restriction under Article 35(1) and (2) of the Trade Union

3. According to the facts established by the court below, since the collective agreement was concluded on June 21, 198 between the defendant corporation and its labor union (hereinafter referred to as the above collective agreement), its validity period is two years from the date of conclusion (one year for wage agreements). If the negotiation for renewal is in progress after the expiry of its validity period, the collective agreement shall remain effective, and if one party intends to renew the agreement, he shall submit a renewal proposal and request collective bargaining 30 days before the expiration of its validity period, and if there is no such request, the above collective agreement shall be automatically renewed. The defendant corporation shall submit the draft amendment of the collective agreement to the labor union on May 19, 190 before the expiration date of the above collective agreement, and present its negotiation after sending the draft amendment to the labor union on June 19, 190, but at the same time, it shall be deemed that there was no further opinion that the immediately preceding labor union negotiated with the plaintiffs' wage negotiations after the expiration of the collective agreement, and it shall not proceed with disciplinary action against the plaintiff 19.

4. The argument points out that the term of validity of the above collective agreement is terminated on June 21, 1990 after the two years passed, and even if the above collective agreement is in progress for negotiations for the renewal of the collective agreement, it is contrary to the legislative intent of Article 35 of the Trade Union Act, which is a mandatory law, and thus cannot be recognized after September 21 of the same year. However, the purport of prohibiting the agreement to continue the validity of the previous collective agreement for more than three months is not to be interpreted (referring to the above precedents) and it is not doubtful if the term of validity of the previous collective agreement is equal to the upper limit stipulated in the law, but in light of the circumstances that the collective agreement is right and wrong to leave the agreement under private autonomy of the parties, as much as possible, and that there is no gap in the situation where the collective agreement is in progress, it shall not be deemed as valid only for three months or two years after the expiration of the term of validity.

Therefore, if there are such provisions in the collective agreement, collective bargaining for the renewal of the collective agreement shall be deemed to continue temporarily until the parties refuse or unfairly delay negotiations for the renewal of the collective agreement. However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the collective agreement shall not be deemed to have been in effect until the defendant corporation punishs the plaintiffs, nor shall the parties refuse negotiations for the renewal of the collective agreement, and it shall be deemed that the collective agreement has been in force until the defendant corporation punishs the plaintiffs.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

The court below's decision that the defendant corporation approved the validity of the above collective agreement is added, and as long as the court below's decision that the above collective agreement shall continue to exist when it takes disciplinary action against the plaintiffs, it shall not affect the conclusion of this case. This decision is without merit.

On the third ground for appeal

1. According to the facts established by the court below,

A. According to the above collective agreement, in the case of reduction or dismissal of salary or dismissal for a labor union member, it must undergo a resolution of the disciplinary committee including two disciplinary committee members of the labor union, and shall notify the person to be disciplined in writing five days prior to the holding of the disciplinary committee, and shall give the person to be disciplined an opportunity to vindicate at the request of a witness. The rules of employment that the defendant corporation revised and implemented as of September 18, 1990 when requesting the plaintiffs' disciplinary action, the personnel committee of the defendant corporation shall be operated as the disciplinary committee, and the personnel committee shall be composed of the chairperson, the director, the standing commissioner, the director, the secretary general, the chief of the medical department, and the appointed commissioner commissioned by the chief director. The disciplinary committee shall not participate in the disciplinary action, and the disciplinary committee shall provide the person to be disciplined with an opportunity to vindicate by notifying the person to be disciplined of the date and reason at least three days prior to the holding of

B. The head of the hospital delegated by the president of the defendant corporation to the president of the disciplinary committee shall be comprised of five members from the hospital and two members from the labor union, and on September 24 of the same year publicly announced on September 18 of the same year that the appointment of two members from the labor union was requested on the same day. In this case, without stating the detailed disciplinary reasons against the person to be disciplined, the person to be disciplined was stated only as those subject to disciplinary action other than the plaintiffs, and did not specify the person to be disciplined. The plaintiffs, including the chairman of the labor union, do not state the outline of the disciplinary reasons, but did not state the collective agreement and the rules of employment, and sent the notice of request for attendance. The labor union did not specify the disciplinary reasons, and the labor union refused the appointment of the member from the labor union on the ground that the disciplinary action is limited to the core members of the labor union, which shall be deemed to be under the suppression against the labor union, and notified the defendant corporation that the person to be disciplined should not participate in the disciplinary committee.

C. On the 27th of the same month, the above disciplinary committee postponed the above disciplinary deliberation on the 27th of the same month, and sent a public notice again to the trade union to determine unfair labor practices, interference with medical treatment, etc., and the person to be disciplined requested again to appoint two persons who are not related to the person to be disciplined as disciplinary committee members by disclosing that the person to be disciplined was a person who committed unfair labor practices, interference with medical treatment, etc. other than the plaintiffs. The person to be disciplined requested again to commission two persons who are not related to the person to be disciplined. Accordingly, the labor union suggested specific violations and grounds for the person to be disciplined and requested to present a list of the persons to be disciplined except the plaintiffs. However, the chairperson of the disciplinary committee rejected the above specific violation and grounds for the disciplinary committee's specific list on the grounds that the person to be disciplined other than the plaintiffs was revealed in the process of holding the disciplinary committee, and rejected the selection of the person to be disciplined committee on the 27th of the same month because the trade union did not specify the grounds for disciplinary action.

2. If the contents of the above collective agreement and rules of employment are the same as above, the chairperson of the defendant corporation or disciplinary committee shall not obstruct the selection of disciplinary committee members by clarifying the list of persons to be disciplined and the grounds for disciplinary action in requesting a trade union to select the disciplinary committee members. Even if persons to be disciplined do not specifically state the grounds for disciplinary action, it shall give the disciplinary committee members commissioned by the trade union an opportunity to recognize the existence or absence of the grounds for disciplinary action prior to the holding of the disciplinary committee, by specifying the date of occurrence of the grounds for disciplinary action and outline of the offense. However, upon requesting the selection of the disciplinary committee members, it shall be limited to the provisions of the collective agreement or rules of employment against the person to be disciplined, and shall not state the outline of the offense. Furthermore, the persons to be disciplined other than the plaintiffs were not specified, and the request of the trade union requesting the determination of the grounds for disciplinary committee cannot be deemed to have been rejected, and the decision of the court below as a person to be disciplined or a person to be disciplined who does not have interests, and thus, it cannot be deemed to have violated the purport of the disciplinary action or collective agreement.

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.