[1] Standard for determining whether a full-time officer of a trade union is obligated to pay wages to the full-time officer of the employer's trade union during the status and strike period

[2] In a case where the defendant, a representative director of the company, was prosecuted for violating the "matters concerning the provision of convenience among the contents of the collective agreement" because he did not pay wages for the part corresponding to the period of strike to full-time officers against the collective agreement which provides that he shall pay wages, the case affirming

[1] A full-time officer of a trade union shall have the status as an employee under basic labor-management relations, but is similar to a worker on leave in that he/she is exempted from the duty to provide labor and is exempt from the employer's duty to pay wages. Even if an employer pays a certain amount of money to his/her full-time officer according to a collective agreement, etc., it shall not be deemed as wages which are paid for his/her full-time officer. Whether an employer is obligated to pay wages to his/her full-time officer during the period of strike shall be determined individually

[2] Where Defendant, a representative director of the company, was prosecuted for violation of the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 930 of Jan. 1, 2010) on the ground that he/she failed to pay wages to full-time officers during the strike period against the collective agreement to pay wages to full-time officers, the case affirmed the judgment below which acquitted Defendant of Defendant on the ground that Article 9 of the collective agreement concluded between the above company and the trade union was paid to full-time officers of the trade union to the extent that he/she does not receive unfavorable treatment than ordinary union members engaged in the work of providing original labor under the labor contract, and since ordinary union members did not receive wages during the strike period in accordance with the principle of non-labor-free wages, the full-time officer of the trade union can not claim wages to the employer like ordinary union members.

[1] Article 24 of the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Amended by Act No. 930, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 31 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Article 2(1)1 and 5 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 24 and subparagraph 1 (e) of Article 92 of the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Amended by Act No. 9930, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 31 and 44 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da26671 delivered on November 10, 1995 (Gong1997Sang, 195) Supreme Court Decision 97Da54727 delivered on April 24, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1456), Supreme Court Decision 2003Da4815, 4822, 4839 delivered on September 22, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 19455)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Changwon District Court Decision 2010No127 decided July 23, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Although the full-time officer of a trade union has the basic labor-management relationship between the employer and the worker, he/she is similar to the worker on temporary retirement in that he/she is exempted from the duty to provide labor and is exempt from the employer's duty to pay wages, even if the employer pays a certain amount of money to the full-time officer according to the collective agreement, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da54566, Nov. 10, 1995; 97Da54727, Apr. 24, 1998). Whether the employer is obligated to pay wages to the full-time officer should be determined individually for each specific case in consideration of the contents of the collective agreement and other labor-management agreements of the relevant workplace, and the labor-management practice of the relevant workplace. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that Article 9 of the collective agreement of this case does not provide the full-time officer with certain wages to the full-time officer within the extent that he/she does not receive wages from the full-time officer or union members without labor.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of a collective agreement or its violation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)