[1] Requirements for consent to unilaterally change the content of the existing working conditions by the revision of the rules of employment

[2] In a case where the existing rules of employment are amended to reduce the retirement age, and the consent of the labor union consisting of a majority of all the workers who were subject to the existing rules of retirement is not qualified to join the labor union, but it is also applicable to the workers subject to the existing rules of employment (affirmative)

[3] In a case where a number of workers' groups are within a single working conditions system and working conditions are separated, the scope of workers subject to consent when revising the rules of employment disadvantageously

[1] Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act / [3] Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da85997 decided Feb. 29, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 457) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2009Du2238 decided May 28, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1025)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Dong-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Law Firm New Daily, Attorneys Cho Yong-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2009Na189 decided May 29, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on the evidence of its judgment, that the defendant company reported the revised rules of employment in this case to the Minister of Labor on the same day after obtaining the consent of the labor union on June 20, 201 with respect to the rules of employment in this case that reduces the retirement age from 65 to 60 years of age. The defendant company's trade union is a member of four classes (technical, office, research), and production, administrative, and commercial workers. The plaintiff is a member at the same time, but the plaintiff is not a member, and the plaintiff is not a member. The defendant company obtained the consent of the defendant company's labor union with respect to the rules of employment in this case, but the above trade union cannot be deemed as a trade union consisting of a majority of the workers who were subject to the existing rules of employment. On the other hand, the change of the rules of employment in this case cannot be deemed as valid, and since the defendant company did not obtain the consent of the researcher at risk that the plaintiff would suffer disadvantage due to the change in the rules of retirement age.

However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

As a matter of principle, an employer may prepare and revise the rules of employment according to his/her own intent. However, in order to unilaterally revise the existing rules of employment to disadvantage workers due to an amendment to the rules of employment, consent is required by collective decision-making method of a group of workers under the previous rules of employment. The consent method requires the labor union if there exists a labor union consisting of the majority of workers, and the majority of workers if there is no such labor union, it refers to the majority of the workers who are subject to the existing rules of employment (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da85997, Feb. 29, 2008). In addition, a trade union composed of the majority of workers refers to a trade union with which the existing rules of employment are subject to 200, which is composed of a group of workers under the previous rules of employment, and it refers to a group of workers under the revised rules of employment, which is subject to 90, which is not subject to the previous rules of employment, and even if there is no anticipated disadvantage to the majority of workers, it refers to the previous rules of employment.

In light of the above legal principles, the reasoning of the judgment below, and the records, even though the Plaintiff is not admitted as a member to the position responsible level for research in this case, and only the position responsible level at the time of the reduction of the retirement age is directly disadvantaged due to the reduction of the retirement age under the rules of employment in this case, if other worker group is within the same working condition system as the employee group at the time of the reduction of the retirement age, and the other worker group is also expected to be subject to the provisions on the reduction of the retirement age under the rules of employment in this case, it is reasonable to view that the whole worker group including not only the employee group at the position responsible for research but also the other employee group is the consent body. Thus, the court below should have deliberated on the existence and scope of the employee group within the same working condition system as the employee group at the position responsible for research, and should have confirmed whether the labor union was composed of a majority of the employees, if there is no such labor union, and confirmed whether there was any unfavorable consent from the majority of the employees in the meeting method, and whether there was any disadvantageous consent of the employees.

Nevertheless, without properly examining and determining the above points, the court below held that even if the defendant company obtained the consent of the labor union on the ground that the employee who was at a disadvantage due to the reduction of the retirement age in research service under the Rules of Employment at the time of the reduction of the retirement age, is not in research service at the time of the reduction of the retirement age, and the employee who was at a disadvantage due to the reduction of the retirement age is not admitted as a member, the amendment of the Rules of Employment at issue cannot be deemed valid. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of workers who were at a disadvantage due to the amendment of the Rules of Employment and the consent body of the amendment, or failing to properly examine the necessary matters, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)