(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.10.16. 선고 2013구합57433 판결

The Defendant’s corrective order that was issued between the Plaintiff and the National Health Insurance Corporation on May 16, 2013 with respect to the collective agreement concluded on April 15, 2012 between the Plaintiff and the National Health Insurance Corporation was revoked (the Plaintiff stated in the warden that the date of disposition was May 16, 2012, but it appears that the Plaintiff would be a clerical error in accordance with the evidence No. 7.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an industrial trade union whose members consist of workers in the public and social service sector, and the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Corporation”) has a branch of the National Social Services Workers’ Union A (hereinafter “A branch”), which is a branch of the Plaintiff’s affiliate. In November 2012, A branch was composed of 6,300 members and 12 branch offices and 234 branch offices.

B. On March 21, 2012, Annex A notified the Corporation as the Chairperson of the Emergency Countermeasures Headquarters A, and B was elected. The Plaintiff’s Chairperson delegated matters concerning the negotiations of the collective agreement in 201 that the Plaintiff and the Corporation concluded with the Plaintiff on March 29, 2012. B concluded a collective agreement with the Corporation on April 6, 2012 (hereinafter “instant collective agreement”), and affixed seals attached to the instant collective agreement in the name of the Plaintiff. In addition, on April 15, 2012, the instant collective agreement agreed on the limit of the public interest system for working hours at 14,000 hours:

[Specialized] The Corporation and the Plaintiff, based on the fundamental spirit of the Constitution and labor-related laws, are under the principle of mutual understanding between labor and management, autonomous bargaining, and good faith. (Interim omitted) The purpose of promoting the welfare of union members is to conclude a collective agreement and to ensure that both parties comply with it and implement it. Article 1 (Negotiating Parties) The Plaintiff is an organization that negotiates wages and labor conditions for union members of A branch (hereinafter referred to as "branch") on behalf of A branch (hereinafter referred to as "branch"): Provided, That this does not apply where the Plaintiff delegates it to a branch or higher organization. Article 16 (Activities Activities during the working hours) (1) of the Act shall, in principle, be notified in writing to the Corporation and the parties may conduct an association activity during working hours. In such cases, the class may be notified in writing to the Corporation and the parties shall be deemed to have worked during the working hours.

Article 17 (Depositee) (1) seven full-time officers shall be paid, and four persons shall be unpaid.

C. On May 16, 2013, pursuant to Articles 21, 24(2) and (4), 31(3), and 81 subparag. 4, etc. of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”), the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to correct Article 16(1)9 of the instant collective agreement (hereinafter “instant collective agreement provision”) by July 5, 2013, on the ground that “the time limit for union activities is set at a fixed and accurate level without specific usage to a specific union executive who is not a member of the meeting according to the bylaws” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The purpose of adopting the working hours exemption system under Article 24(4) of the Trade Union and Labor Act is to prevent full-time workers from paying wages to small and medium-sized workers, and to avoid the activity of a trade union. Article 24 of the Trade Union and Labor Act provides for the prohibition of payment of wages to full-time workers and the exemption system from working hours in light of the system and language of the Trade Union and Labor Act. The part of the union activities of a non-full-time worker is guaranteed as paid under other Acts, such as the Act on the Promotion of Workers’ Participation and Cooperation. There is no reason not to prohibit the payment of wages to a non-full-time worker of a trade union under the labor-management agreement, and the Ministry of Employment and Labor has authoritative interpretation that the non-full-time worker of a trade union can be determined as paid in a collective agreement within a reasonable level on the part of the union's working hours, and Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor also prohibits the full-time officer of a trade union under its language and text.

2) Even if a trade union non-exclusive union member's paid activity does not constitute an excessive level to the extent of undermining the original duty to provide labor, the Plaintiff does not violate Article 24(2), (4), and Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. In order for the union members to resolve the grievances, etc. of union members throughout the country, the president of the branch and the branch heads need regular meetings, and the Plaintiff is a paid union member's paid union activity with a large number of the president and the branch heads, and the total amount of paid union activity hours is the larger, and the paid union activity hours do not exceed the individual paid union activity hours. In light of the above, the hours recognized as paid pursuant to Article 24(2), (4), and Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act does not constitute an excessive level.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

Each provision of the former part of Article 24(4) and the proviso of Article 81(4) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act explicitly prescribes the subject of exemption from working hours as “worker” rather than “full-time officer”. A trade union may, even if there is no full-time officer or even if there is a full-time officer, require the full-time officer to conduct paid union affairs with the consent of the employer from among the general members. If Article 24(4) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is interpreted as not applicable to a full-time officer, unreasonable results arise that a full-time officer may engage in unpaid paid union activities without the application of the limit of exemption from working hours, if there is a collective agreement or the consent of the employer. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the exemption from working hours under Article 24(4) of the Trade Union

According to Articles 24(4) and 24-2 of the Trade Union and Labor Act, exemption from working hours is allowed only in cases where it is necessary to maintain and manage trade unions for the purpose of developing sound labor-management relations, such as consultation with, inter alia, interference with, settlement of grievances, industrial safety activities, etc. with the employer, and the maintenance and management of trade unions, within the limits publicly notified by the Minister of Employment and Labor. However, the provisions of the instant collective agreement do not limit the scope of exemption from working hours and recognize it as being paid to the non-full-time union activities to exceed the limits of exemption from working hours, and thus, it violates Article 24(4) and Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Act without determining whether there is an excessive time recognized as being paid pursuant to the provisions of the instant collective agreement. Therefore, the instant disposition is legitimate, regardless of whether

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.