2014Da78362 Compensation (as stated)

1. National Metal Trade Union;

2. A;

3. B

C Stock Company

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na22528 Decided September 24, 2014

January 28, 2016

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 81 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Trade Union Act") that prohibits an employee from engaging in unfair labor practices prohibits an act of controlling or participating in the organization or operation of a trade union, and an act of providing wages to the full-time officer of a trade union or assisting the operation expenses of a trade union. However, in the proviso, "the act of allowing an employee to engage in an activity under Article 24 (4) during working hours, the act of allowing an employer to engage in an activity under Article 24 (4), the act of contributing funds for the welfare of workers or for the prevention, relief, etc. of economic inequality and providing a minimum amount of labor union office" is exceptionally permitted.

The legislative purpose of which the above provision prohibits the employer from providing assistance to the operating expenses of the trade union (hereinafter referred to as "operating expenses") is to prevent the employer from depending on economic dependence or control by the trade union and ensure the independence of the trade union.

However, Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act provides that a trade union refers to an organization or associated organization organized by workers as its principal agent for the purpose of maintaining and improving working conditions and promoting the improvement of workers' economic and social status by voluntarily combining them with the aim of promoting the improvement of workers' economic and social status, and that "where the principal part of expenses is subsidized by employers" is not regarded as a trade union. In light of this, the act of a trade union receiving subsidies from employers is likely to undermine the autonomy of the trade union.

In addition, the main text of Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act, which is interpreted as one of the former operational expense assistance activities, prohibits the act of subsidizing wages to the full-time officer of the trade union (hereinafter referred to as the "full-time officer of the trade union") (hereinafter referred to as the "full-time officer") from providing operational expense assistance in parallel with the act of assisting the full-time officer of the trade union. Meanwhile, even if the full-time officer of the trade union is a full-time officer, he/she may conduct affairs such as consultation and negotiation with the employer without any loss of wages to the extent that it does not exceed the limit of exemption from working hours pursuant to Article 24(4) of the Trade Union Act, but it is prohibited from receiving all wages from the employer during the full-time period pursuant to Article 24(2) of the Trade Union Act. Since the proviso and proviso are reflected in this Act, it is interpreted that the act of subsidizing the full-time officer of the trade union itself constitutes an unfair labor act in itself without any need to separately undermine the independence of the trade union.

In addition, the proviso of Article 81 subparagraph 4 of the Trade Union Act only allows "the contribution to funds for the purposes of welfare, prevention of re-payment, relief, etc. of workers and the provision of at least a size of the trade union office". Thus, in light of the legislative purpose of the Trade Union Act, the act that can be assessed as being included in the cases prescribed in the proviso of the above-mentioned proviso under ordinary social norms or as being of the same nature that can be presented like it can be permitted. However, the act that deviates from the proviso of Article 81 subparagraph 4 of the Trade Union Act

In full view of the legislative intent and contents of the above provisions related to the Trade Union Act, it is interpreted that the act of subsidizing operating expenses regularly and fixed by deviating from the act stipulated in the proviso of Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act is an unfair labor practice prohibited under the main sentence of Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act, as it is likely to lose the independence of a trade union as well as the act of subsidizing wages to a full-time employee of a trade union. Although the operating expenses are the result of a trade union’s active demand or s

Meanwhile, the prohibition of unfair labor practices under Article 81 of the Trade Union Act is aimed at securing the three labor rights prescribed by the Constitution, and is subject to the punishment of imprisonment with labor for not more than two years or a fine not exceeding twenty million won for an act in violation of Article 90 of the Trade Union Act, and Articles 84 and 85 of the Trade Union Act provide for the procedure of administrative remedy so that prompt remedy can be granted for unfair labor practices. The violation of the prohibition of unfair labor practices is invalid (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da11463 delivered on December 21, 1993).

2. Based on its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim seeking the payment of the Trade Union allowance and the activity expenses of the full-time officer under the instant collective agreement, on the ground that: (a) the provision stipulating the Defendant’s payment of the Trade Union’s allowance and the activity expenses for the Defendant’s Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the “instant issues provision”) in the instant collective agreement constitutes unfair labor practices prohibited under the main sentence of Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act, which are mandatory provisions, and thus are invalid.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, although part of the decision of the court below is not appropriate, since the issue clause of this case constitutes unfair labor practice, it is null and void, the conclusion of the court below is just in its conclusion that the plaintiffs cannot seek payment of union assistance funds and full-time officer expenses, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to unfair labor practice under Article 81 subparagraph 4 of

Unlike this case, the Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are not appropriate to be invoked in this case since Article 24 and Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act are related to a case before the amendment as above.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Ko Young-han

Justices Kim Gin-young