Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant regarding Articles 10 (3) and 12 (1) of the collective agreement shall be reversed, and this part shall be reversed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal
A. (1) The main text of Article 8(1) of the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Public Officials’ Unions (amended by Act No. 10133, Mar. 17, 2010; hereinafter “Public Officials’ Labor Unions Act”) provides that “the matters concerning trade unions or matters concerning the remuneration, welfare, and other working conditions of union members” shall be subject to collective bargaining. In the proviso thereof, “the matters concerning policy decisions conducted by the State or a local government by its authority under statutes, etc., and matters concerning the management and operation of the relevant agency, such as the exercise of the right to appoint, which are not directly related to working conditions, shall not be subject to collective bargaining.” Meanwhile, Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2376, Dec. 14, 2011) provides for matters concerning planning or planning of policies, etc., matters concerning the appointment, promotion, and exercise of the right to appoint public officials, matters concerning the organization and operation of agencies, formulation and administration of budget and other matters related administrative agencies.”
In full view of the contents of the relevant provisions on the Public Officials' Labor Relations Adjustment Act, in order for the State or local governments to be subject to collective bargaining, such as matters concerning policy-making by their authority and the exercise of the right to appoint, under statutes, matters concerning the management and operation of the relevant agencies, such as the exercise of the right to appoint public officials, must themselves be directly related to the working conditions to the extent that public officials would serve as the condition for providing public services (see Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du5097, Dec. 11, 2014; 2012Hun-Ba169, Jun. 27, 2013). In this case, even in such cases, it is not permitted
(ii).