Where an employer amends the rules of employment unfavorably to a worker without the consent of the worker in accordance with the collective decision-making method and amends the rules of employment in accordance with a new collective agreement concluded with the trade union, the effects and scope of the rules of employment shall be effective.

Where a trade union concludes a collective agreement with an employer or employers' organization on matters arising from labor-management relations, which provides that a trade union consents or approves to the criteria for determining working conditions, such as existing wages, working hours, retirement allowances, etc. on the part of the employer, the consent or approval is effective after the collective agreement enters into force, and such agreement or approval is applied to the labor union members or workers who will be subject to the agreement. Thus, although the rules of employment are unfavorable to workers, where the previous rules of employment should be applied to the existing workers whose vested interests are infringed by the employer’s modification without the consent of the worker’s collective decision-making method, the previous rules of employment, regardless of whether the trade union knew that the previous rules of employment should be applied to the existing workers whose vested interests are infringed, shall have effect on the labor union members or workers who will be subject to the application of the agreement. Accordingly, the amended rules of employment pursuant to the provisions of the agreement shall apply to the workers.

Article 36 of the former Trade Union Act (amended by Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996); Article 95 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5305 of Mar. 13, 1997)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da45165 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 2516), Supreme Court Decision 93Da870 delivered on April 21, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 193Sang, 2516) (Gong195Sang, 1930)

Apology (Attorney Lee Yong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Han Investment Finance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na19442 delivered on July 7, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where a trade union concludes a collective agreement with an employer or employers' organization on matters arising from labor-management relations, which provides that a trade union consents or approves to the criteria for determining working conditions, such as preexisting wages, working hours, retirement allowances, etc. with an employer, the consent or approval becomes effective after the collective agreement entered into force and becomes effective against the union members or workers who will be subject to the agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da34073, Jul. 24, 1992). Thus, even though the rules of employment are modified disadvantageous to workers, where the previous rules of employment should be applied to pre-existing workers whose vested interests are infringed by the employer’s modification without the consent of the worker’s collective decision-making method, the previous rules of employment, regardless of whether the trade union knew that the previous rules of employment should be applied to the pre-existing workers whose vested interests are infringed, shall be applied to the labor union members or workers subject to the agreement. Accordingly, the amended rules of employment shall be applied to the employees pursuant to the contents of the agreement.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on February 19, 197, the plaintiff entered the defendant's membership as the defendant's employee and retired on October 12, 199. The defendant enacted the retirement consolation benefits payment provision on May 21, 1975, and enacted a high rate of the monthly average wage at the time of retirement (this salary + duty allowance) at the time of retirement, i.e., payment of retirement benefits calculated by multiplying the retirement benefits payment rate by 100,00,000 (the above provision was 198,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000).

If the facts are as acknowledged by the court below, the collective agreement on November 16, 1987 between the defendant and his labor union shall be engaged in the defendant corporation after the enforcement of the agreement, and shall be effective to the union members and workers who will be subject to the agreement. Accordingly, the amended provisions of the collective agreement on November 16, 1988 shall be applied to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall not be justified.

The decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the grounds of appeal, and since the retirement allowance payment provision under the rules of employment was amended disadvantageously to the worker without the consent of the worker group and the collective agreement did not reach any agreement with the worker regarding the payment of retirement allowance, the decision of the court below is not invoked in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)