1. The case holding that an employer's act constitutes unfair labor practice, such as asking the employer to participate in the so-called compliance operation conducted by a resolution of the Trade Union Operation Committee for the union members and closing his/her work in the same manner as before;

2. The case holding that an act of confirming and controlling the taxi commission conducted by trade union executives during the implementation of compliance operations stipulated under the above paragraph (1) constitutes an industrial action;

1. If an employer individually meets a part of the union members of the union or objects to a resolution of the trade union, and the employer took part in the so-called compliance operation (the contents that abide by all laws and regulations in the operation of vehicles and transportation of passengers, and that illegal operation and overtime work such as speed, collection of unfair commission, joint boarding, refusal of boarding, etc. should be avoided as they are set out in the collective agreement, etc.) which is enforced in accordance with the resolution of the operation committee of the trade union after collecting some of the union members, and as a result, orders the union members to take part in the work in the same manner as before and against such act, the employer's act constitutes an unfair labor act as stipulated in Article 39 subparagraph 4 of the Labor Union Act if it decided that some of the union members oppose the above compliance act and work in the previous way.

2. A trade union’s resolution on the implementation of a compliance operation, such as Paragraph 1 of the same Article, cannot be justified. However, in the process of its implementation, if the executive officers of the trade union set the amount of not more than 50,000 won per day taxi commission in addition to the compliance operation of the trade union, have its members comply with it, and have them observe it, and control the daily taxi commission before depositing it into the company so that it does not exceed the above amount, thereby allowing some of its members to operate a mard road by checking it before depositing it into the company, it constitutes an industrial action (work or partial strike) as prescribed in Article 3 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act.

Article 39 of the Trade Union Act, Article 3 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act

Plaintiff

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Intervenor joining the Defendant

1. As to the case of application for review of unfair labor practice between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor (case number omitted), the decision on the application part for remedy of unfair labor practice under Article 39 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act among the decision made by the Defendant as of May 23, 1989 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, those arising between the plaintiff and the defendant are divided into two parts, and one of them is the plaintiff's and the remainder is the defendant's own expenses, and that arising from the participation in the lawsuit is divided into two parts, and one of them is the plaintiff's and the remainder is the defendant's own expenses.

The decision made by the Defendant as of May 23, 1989 on the petition case for review of unfair labor practice between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor (case number omitted), shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. On February 1, 1981, the plaintiff 2's non-party 1 and 2's non-party 2's application for dismissal of the above non-party 1 and non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and non-party 13's non-party 2's non-party 1 and non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1 and non-party 5's non-party 9's non-party 1'.

2. As the cause of the claim in this case, the plaintiff forced the plaintiff union members of the plaintiff union to work in excess of allowances or to raise more revenues despite the fact that the plaintiff had worked in good faith. On the other hand, when the violation of laws and regulations was discovered or the accident occurred thereby, the plaintiff union continued to act in conflict with interest rates, such as ordering the union members to take compliance measures on September 21, 198, and to operate up to 02:00 in order to observe the working hours stipulated in the wage agreement. The plaintiff union passed a resolution of the operating committee of the plaintiff union and conducted this after the next day. The plaintiff did not only unfairly dismiss the executive members of the plaintiff union as well as some members and non-members who are dissatisfied with the compliance operation as acknowledged in the preceding paragraph, as well as unfairly dismissed the executives of the plaintiff union as well as unfairly dismissed the plaintiff union and set up a meeting of friendship and to control and intervene in the trade union activities, such as forcing some union members to use a letter of unfair instruction by the union members, and thus, the defendant's act of unfair labor decision in this case should be revoked.

3. 살피건대, 위에 나온 갑 제1호증, 갑 제2호증의 1,2, 을 제1호증, 을 제2호증의 1 내지 4, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제7호증(단체협약서), 갑 제8호증(상벌위원회규정), 갑 제9호증(상벌규정), 갑 제17호증의 1 내지 5(각 진술서), 6 내지 9(각 회의록), 을 제3호증(회의결과보고), 을 제4호증의 1 내지 4(각 징계의결서), 을 제5호증(회의록), 을 제6호증의 1 내지 4(각 출석요구서), 을 제7호증(임금협약서), 을 제8호증(취업규칙), 을 제23호증 1,2(각 회의록), 3(출석요구서), 4,5(각 상벌위원회개최 기안문), 증인 소외 7의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제12호증의 1 내지 3(각 경위서), 갑 제13호증의 1 내지 3(각 진술서), 증인 소외 8의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제11호증(진술서), 을 제12호증(결의서), 증인 소외 1의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제10호증의 1 내지 5(각 개인별수입금관리대장), 을 제13호증의 3 내지 9, 을 제14호증의 1 내지 7(각 징계관계서류), 을 제15호증의 1,2(각 생산성협조요청공문), 을 제20호증(개인별수입금내역표)의 각 기재와 증인 소외 7, 9, 11, 8, 1의 증언(다만 위 각 증거 중 뒤에서 믿지 아니하는 부분은 각 제외) 및 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 참가인회사와 원고조합은 평소부터 누적되어온 문제로서 수입금의 제고를 위한 회사의 간섭과 비인격적인 대우의 시정문제, 1988년도에 당면한 문제로서 연장근로와 휴일근로수당의 지급문제 및 복장의 지급문제 등에 관하여 상호간에 의견이 대립을 보여왔는데, 원고조합은 같은 해 9.21. 참가인회사와 더 이상 협상을 하는 대신 투쟁으로 위 목적을 달성하기 위하여 원고조합의 운영위원회에서 소위 준법운행을 실시하여(그 당시까지 관행화되어 있는 과속, 부당요금징수, 합승행위 등 불법적인 운행을 중지하여) 1일 입금액을 가능하면 금 50,000원을 초과하지 말 것과 임금협정에 규정된 1일 16시간의 근로시간을 지키기 위하여 02:00까지만 운행할 것을 결의한 사실, 원고조합의 간부들인 이 사건 해고근로자들은 그 다음날부터 이를 실천하도록 전 조합원들에게 지시한 다음 준법운행기간 중인 같은 달 22. 부터 조합원들이 당일수입금을 회사에 입금시키기 전에 컴퓨터미터기와 당일의 수입금액을 직접 확인하면서 입금액이 금 50,000원을 초과할 경우 이를 그 이하로 낮추도록 종용한 사실, 참가인회사 운전기사들의 근무는 격일제근무이고 휴식시간 3시간을 제외한 1일 근무시간이 16시간이었으므로 위 준법운행이 실시되기 전에는 보통 07:00∼07:30경에 택시를 출고하면 그 익일 03:00∼05:00경에 각자의 편의에 따라 차량을 입고시키고 있었고 임금협정에 따라 당일 수입금중 금 58,000원을 초과하는 부분은 회사와 운전사가 반씩 나누어 분배하는 방식으로 하여왔으며 그 결과 조합원들의 1일 평균 회사입금액이 금 7∼8만원 정도이었으나, 위 준법운행을 실시한 후에는 조합원들이 일률적으로 02:00경에 차를 입고시킴으로써 1일 평균 회사입금액이 금 4∼5만원 정도에 불과하여 회사에 막대한 수입감소를 초래케 하였을 뿐만 아니라, 일부조합원들은 위 입금액을 맞추기 위하여 인적이 드문 해안도로를 공차로 운행하거나 차량의 운행을 정지하고 도박을 하는 등의 비정상적인 운행사례도 발생한 사실, 참가인회사는 같은 해 10.7.과 10.9. 두차례에 걸쳐 원고조합에게 생산성 향상에 협조하여 줄 것을 요청하였으나 아무런 성과를 얻지 못하였으므로 참가인회사의 대표이사인 소외 11과 전무인 소외 1은 같은 해 10.8. 참가인회사의 운전기사로 근무하면서도 소외 11의 조카로서 원고조합에 가입하고 있지 않은 소외 이순홍을 통하여 위 준법운행의 실시로 인하여 수입이 감소한 데 대한 불만을 가진 일부조합원과 비조합원 등 12명을 소외 12의 집에 모이게 하고 그 자리에 위 대표이사와 전무가 참석하여 위 준법운행의 결의를 비난하는 취지의 발언을 하고 정상적인 운행을 종용하였을 뿐만 아니라, 그 무렵부터는 원고조합의 조합원인 소외 13, 14, 15 등을 사장실에 부르거나 그들의 집으로 찾아가 개별적인 면담을 하면서 위 준법운행을 하게 된 경위, 진행과정 및 이를 비판하는 진술서, 해명서, 소원서를 작성하게 하는 등의 방법으로 원고조합의 운영을 지배하거나 이에 개입하는 행위를 하였고, 그 결과 소외 13 등 16명의 조합원들이 그 무렵 위 준법운행에 반대하며 정상적인 근무에 임하기로 결의를 한 사실, 한편 참가인회사의 단체협약 제25조와 상벌규정 제7조는 종업원의 해고사유의 하나로서 상벌위원회에서 해고하기로 결정한 경우를 들고 있고, 단체협약 제26조는 회사는 노사협의회의 결의 없이는 조합원을 징계하지 못하고 조합원을 징계하고자 할 때에는 늦어

Do

The Criminal Procedure Act provides that workers shall be notified 10 days before the meeting of the labor-management council and shall be provided with an opportunity to vindicate the above case. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, three employees shall be composed of three employees and three employees shall be appointed by the president of the company, and one employee shall be elected by the president of the company if the meeting is deemed necessary or if the representative of the company so requests, the committee shall be notified in writing at least seven days before the meeting and the meeting shall be held with the consent of 2/3 or more of the members, and if an employee's disciplinary action is resolved, the employer shall not be required to attend the meeting, and the employer shall not be required to give the same opportunity to speak for the above case. On the other hand, the employer shall be notified 10 days before the meeting, and the employer shall be required to give the above 10th of the number of employees present at the meeting, and the employer shall be required to give the above 10th of the number of employees present at the meeting, and the employer shall be required to give the above 10th of the disciplinary action to the company.

4. First, as recognized above, the intervenor company's act of setting up against the plaintiff union's compliance operation constitutes an unfair labor practice under Article 39 subparagraph 4 of the Trade Union Act, and Article 39 subparagraph 4 of the same Act provides that "the participant company's act of controlling or participating in the organization or operation of a trade union and assistance in operating expenses of a trade union" as a type of unfair labor practice. As such, as recognized above, the participant company's representative director or former managing director of the participant company or the plaintiff association's member of the plaintiff association individually or the defendant's objection against the resolution of the plaintiff union is collected from some of the members, and against the above compliance operation, the participant company's act of opposing the plaintiff union's compliance operation and decided to work in the same way as before and against the above compliance operation, if some of the members of the participant company acted against the above compliance operation and decided to work in the previous way, it is reasonable to determine that the above act constitutes an unfair labor practice of the intervenor company.

5. Next, the intervenor company's dismissal of the dismissed workers of this case as above constitutes unfair labor practices under Article 39 subparagraph 1 or 5 of the Trade Union Act, and the above "quasi-operation" decided upon by the plaintiff union's implementation of the labor union as to whether the dismissal workers of this case constitutes unfair labor practices under Article 39 subparagraph 1 or 5 of the same Act is done in order to abide by all the applicable laws and regulations in vehicle operation and passenger transport, and to increase revenues until the time when the collective agreement or rules of employment were observed as to the work hours, and the practice has been committed in order to prevent illegal operation, such as collection of unfair charges, joint admission, refusal of passengers, and overtime, and defects in work by law and collective agreement. Thus, it cannot be caused by the intervenor's dismissal workers of this case, who are executive officers of the plaintiff union, from the point of view that the dismissal workers of this case did not comply with the above rules and ordered the union members to comply with such regulations, and if the worker's payment of such amount exceeds 00 days prior to the above operation of labor dispute.

However, Article 12 of the same Act provides that an industrial action by a trade union shall not be conducted unless it is decided with the consent of a majority of its union members by direct, secret, and secret ballot. Article 16 of the same Act provides that an industrial action shall be conducted by one of the parties concerned after reporting it to the administrative agency and the Labor Relations Commission. Article 14 of the same Act provides that an industrial action shall not be conducted 10 days in the case of a general business, and 15 days in the case of a public-service business from the date on which the report as provided in Article 16 was received by the Labor Relations Commission, and that an industrial action shall not be conducted until the expiration of 15 days in the case of a public-service business. The fact that the plaintiff union, only by the resolution of the Labor Relations Commission, conducted the above resolution without a report or cooling period of the occurrence of the industrial action is recognized as an industrial action. If the above compliance operation is considered as an industrial action, the above industrial action shall be deemed to be an illegal act which did not comply with the provisions of the Labor Dispute Adjustment Act, and the so-called Labor Relations Commission's Regulations.

According to Article 26 of the collective agreement of the intervenor company, when the plaintiff does not take disciplinary action against the union members without the resolution of the labor-management council and the company intends to take disciplinary action against the union members, it shall notify the union members of the labor-management council at least ten days prior to the latest, and the standing committee shall be established as a whole attendance of the participant company pursuant to Article 14 of the rules of the standing committee of the participant company. Since each of the above dismissal is asserted as null and void, each of the above dismissal is asserted as null and void, the procedure of dismissal of the dismissed workers in this case is recognized as being in violation of each of the above rules, but it is recognized that the above dismissal procedure does not take disciplinary action against the union members without the resolution of the labor-management council (if the collective agreement provides that the disciplinary action against the union members shall be decided by the standing committee, it is not necessary to go through the resolution of the labor-management council, and it is difficult to find that each of the above dismissal workers violates the above unfair labor practices, as well as the above unfair labor practices in this case.

6. Thus, the intervenor's act of controlling and participating in the trade union among the above acts should be established with respect to the plaintiff's act of unfair labor, and the defendant judged that all of the dismissal workers in this case did not constitute unfair labor acts. However, the defendant's decision that the defendant does not establish unfair labor acts. Since the part of the decision on the establishment of unfair labor acts due to the control and intervention in the decision on reexamination of this case is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the above part is justified, and the decision on the remaining part is justified, and the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the above part is dismissed as there is no reason to do so, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89, 92, and 94 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Yu Soo-dae (Presiding Judge)