The limit for a trade union to exercise disciplinary action, which is a disciplinary measure based on the control of union against its employees.

The right to control a trade union should be allowed by law as part of guaranteeing the workers' right to organize, but since it is limited to the extent necessary and reasonable to attain the objectives of the trade union, the right to impose sanctions for securing the invalidation of control should also be exercised within the extent of such right. In such cases, the legitimacy of disciplinary action shall be carefully treated in consideration of the type of disciplinary action, the contents of the trade union regulations, and the degree of violation of the union regulations.

Articles 13 and 14 of the Trade Union Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

The Korean Automobile Trade Union Federation Seoul FFF Passenger Bus Workers' Union

1. On October 21, 1987, the Defendant’s expulsion disposition against the Plaintiffs is confirmed to be null and void.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. On October 21, 1987, the plaintiffs were subject to the disposition of expulsion from the defendant association, and there is no dispute between the parties concerned, and Gap evidence 1 through 3 (Notice of Removal from each union), Eul evidence 2-1 through 3 (Notice of Disposition of Expulsion from each union), Eul evidence 7 (Report of Change in the Matters reported for Establishment of the Union), Eul evidence 4 (Report of Change in the Minutes from the Matters reported for Establishment of the Association), and the purport of the whole pleadings in each testimony of the above witness and witness interference. In addition, the defendant association was composed of non-party 1's employees belonging to the non-party 1's association with the aim of contributing to the improvement of working conditions and the improvement of social status of its members, and the plaintiff 1's act of expulsion from the non-party 1's association was not a unit of the labor union under the Act on the Establishment of the plaintiff 1's non-party 1's new shares before the expiration of the term of office on December 20, 1963.

2. According to Article 42 of the rules of the defendant union, when taking a disciplinary measure against its members, the defendant union did not give the parties an opportunity to vindicate before making the disciplinary measure against the plaintiffs, but it did not give such opportunity, and it did so without any justifiable reason so that the defendant union can restore its union's union's function to develop in a sound manner. The defendant asserts that it is an unlawful disposition that it goes beyond the scope of disciplinary right against its members and is null and void as the result of the violation of Article 42 of the rules of the defendant union's failure to comply with the resolution of the defendant union's order for improvement of its working conditions on August 12, 1987 and the request for improvement of its working conditions was not carried out by the heads of the Seoul Urban Railroad Co., Ltd., which violated the rules of the defendant union's order for improvement of its working conditions on the 20th of the same month, and even if the defendant union's order for improvement was passed by the 1st of the defendant union's order for improvement of its working conditions on the 20th of the defendant union.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s right to control the members of the Union is limited to the extent that it is necessary to achieve the objectives of the labor union’s right to control the members of the Association, and the right to impose sanctions against the non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s witness.

According to each of the above facts, the plaintiffs' act of farming while inciting the strike on August 20, 1987, but the plaintiff 1, 2 et al.'s act of criticizeing the president of the defendant association on the job where the union members are gathered constitutes a case where the defendant association's resolution and the instruction of the association under Article 40, Article 40, Article 1, and 2 of the Code of the defendant association were disobeyed the reputation of the association by spreading false facts ( even if the criticism against the president of the defendant association is related to the duties of the president of the association as seen above, if the contents are related to the duties of the president of the association, it can be deemed that the reputation of the association is infringed). Accordingly, the disciplinary action, which is a means for the control of the association's right to control, should be the subject of disciplinary action, and the procedure of disciplinary action against the plaintiffs by

However, since the expulsion disposition of the defendant union as disciplinary action against the plaintiffs is necessary for the accomplishment of the objectives of the plaintiffs' union's regulations and the violation of the plaintiffs' regulations, it is a sanction to lose the status of the union members, which is not so-called Universal Partnership's union's membership, which results in the deprivation of the rights to participate in collective action of the workers who are union members. Thus, unlike other sanctions, the defendant union's non-party 6-4 (collective agreement), Gap's evidence 7-1 (Quality of), and the defendant union's non-party 6-2 (MU), which is acknowledged as legitimate for the improvement of the plaintiffs' rights to participate in collective action, should not be recognized as invalid for the reason that the defendant union's non-party 2's non-party 3's right to participate in collective bargaining and the defendant union's non-party 1's non-party 2's right to participate in the improvement of the labor conditions of the plaintiff union's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3 (U.7).

3. If so, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of the above expulsion disposition against the plaintiffs on October 21, 1987 is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Cho Soon-il (Presiding Judge)