[1] The purport of Article 41 (1) of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

[2] The scope of union members to decide on industrial action when a branch of a trade union is in strike

[3] The case holding that an industrial action by an automobile cooperative trade union can be justified in its purpose, means, and method

[1] Article 41(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which provides that an industrial action by a worker becomes a justifiable act under the Criminal Act, requires a union member's consent by a direct, secret, and unsigned ballot, to promote the autonomous and democratic operation of the trade union, as well as to ensure that the workers involved in the industrial action do not suffer any disadvantage in relation to the legitimacy of the industrial action after the fact.

[2] In the case of a trade union by region, industry, and type of business, if the majority of the union members belonging to the pertinent branch or sub-branch that is scheduled to conduct an industrial action is not a general strike, the industrial action shall be deemed procedurally lawful. It does not require the consent of more than a majority of all union members including the union members of the branch or sub-branch that is irrelevant to

[3] The case holding that an industrial action by an automobile cooperative trade union can be justified in its purpose, means, and method

[1] Article 41 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [2] Articles 4, 37, and 41 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [3] Articles 4 and 37 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Article 20 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 99Do4837 delivered on October 25, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2624)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorneys Kim Young-deok et al.

Jeonju District Court Decision 2004No190 delivered on July 2, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 41(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which provides that an industrial action by a worker becomes a justifiable act under the Criminal Act, requires a union member's consent by a direct, secret, and unsigned ballot, and Article 41(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, provides for the promotion of the union member's autonomous and democratic operation, as well as the provision to ensure that the workers involved in the industrial action do not suffer any disadvantage in relation to the legitimacy of the industrial action after the fact (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 99Do4837, Oct. 25, 2001).

In light of the above purport, in the case of a trade union by region, industry, and type of business, if the majority of the union members belonging to the relevant branch or sub-branch that is scheduled to conduct an industrial action are approved, the industrial action shall be deemed lawful in a procedural manner. It shall not require the consent of more than a majority of all union members including the union members of the branch or sub-branch that is irrelevant to the industrial action.

On July 16, 2001, the court below acknowledged that on the part of the defendant, etc., 14 of the 15 members of the cooperative enterprise trade union in the cooperative in the cooperative in the cooperative in the military and mountain (hereinafter referred to as the "cooperative in business and trade union") attending the 15 members of the 15 members of the 15 branch in the 15 branch of the 15 branch of the 15 branch of the 2001, and reported the occurrence of industrial disputes to the 18 branch of the 18th branch of the 190 branch, the court below held that the industrial action in this case is legitimate in the process without the consent of the majority of all the members of

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The court below held that the legitimacy of the industrial action can be recognized because the defendant's refusal of work and the attendance at a meeting was due to the conclusion of the collective agreement between the cooperative company and the Korean propelling stock company. The court below held that the industrial action in this case was conducted as a whole in accordance with the guidelines of the cooperative company's trade union, since it is reasonable to see that the industrial action in this case was naturally accompanied by the exercise of the legitimate collective action right of the trade union and thus, it is within the scope of the employer's duty. In light of the records, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)