Conven Wnn Anthromobex Limited (Attorney Kim Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

National Metal Trade Union (Law Firm Inn, Attorneys Cheong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 7, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

On September 8, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the decision of review on September 8, 2015 on the application for correction of violation of the duty of fair representation between the Plaintiff and the National Metal Trade Union (connife) and the Central Telecommunication Union, 2015.36, 37 (Consolidated), and 37 (Consolidated).

1. The circumstances leading to the decision on reexamination of this case

A. Status of the parties

1) The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures, sells, supplies, etc. electronic parts, etc. for automobiles and non-motor vehicles by employing 690 full-time workers after its establishment on August 19, 195.

2) On February 8, 2001, the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s national metal trade union (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) established on February 8, 2001, as a national industrial trade union organized with workers engaged in the metal industry and metal-related industries, and on February 8, 2001, the line linen and linen branch of the Korea Metal Trade Union (hereinafter “participating”) was also established, and 50 workers of the Plaintiff were admitted to the said branch.

3) On July 26, 2012, linen trade union is a company-level trade union established for the organization of the Plaintiff’s workers, and more than 290 workers are admitted as its members.

B. Conclusion of collective agreements

On March 12, 2014, the Conven trade union concluded a collective agreement with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant collective agreement”) on September 16, 2014, which became final and conclusive as a representative bargaining trade union through the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows.

(c) An early inquiry tribunal of the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission;

1) On September 1, 2014, the Intervenor asserted that Article 103 of the instant collective agreement (Articles 18, 26, 29, 30, 44, 72, 73, 75, 79, 83, and 92 of the instant collective agreement provides that a trade union that is the subject of a labor-management agreement refers to a trade union that is the representative of the bargaining), and Article 48 of the detailed guidelines of the collective agreement, arguing that the labor-management agreement violates the duty of fair representation, and filed an application for correction with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul 2014 Fair 18).

2) On April 27, 2015, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission decided that “The provisions of Article 103 of the instant collective agreement (Article 26, 29, 30, and 44, the part that Article 103 of the instant collective agreement provides that a trade union which is the subject of the labor-management agreement refers to a bargaining representative trade union, and Article 48 of the detailed guidelines of the collective agreement) violates the duty of fair representation,” and ordered the Plaintiff and the contact and the denex trade union to renegotiation the said provision, and dismissed the rest of the Intervenor’s application.

(d) Decision on review by the National Labor Relations Commission;

1) As to the part of the first instance trial court determined that the Plaintiff violated the duty of fair representation, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as to Article 103 of the collective agreement of this case (Article 18, 75, 79, and 83) among the parts that dismissed the application for correction, and Article 103 of the collective agreement of this case (Article 18, 75, 79, and 83 refers to the

2) On September 8, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission (Central 2015 Fair 36, 37 consolidation) determined that Article 103 of the instant collective agreement violated the duty of fair representation (Article 103 (Article 18, 75, 79, and 83 provides that a trade union which is the subject of the labor-management agreement refers to the bargaining representative trade union), and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination and made a decision citing the Intervenor’s application for reexamination (hereinafter “instant decision of reexamination”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to Article 103 of the instant collective agreement

The duty of fair representation based on Article 29-4(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Trade Union Act") is to prevent adverse effects that may arise from the implementation of the system of simplification of bargaining windows, i.e., discrimination against a small number of trade unions or their members without reasonable grounds. Therefore, its meaning should be identified in the extension of the system of simplification of bargaining windows.

The unification system of bargaining windows is contrary to the purport of establishing a bargaining channel unification system because it may result in the difference of working conditions for each trade union in consultation with the employer in case of concluding a supplementary agreement after the collective agreement is concluded to achieve the unification of working conditions, or in case of requiring additional agreements to apply the specific provisions of collective agreements.

In addition, the representative bargaining trade union is an independent legal entity separate from the trade unions which participated in the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows and has the authority to represent all the trade unions participating in the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows as a party to the negotiation and the conclusion of agreements, not a simple bargaining officer.

Therefore, the representative bargaining trade union has the authority to exercise the power of representation in the implementation of the collective agreement as well as the conclusion of a supplementary agreement or the consultation for the specific application of the collective agreement during the maintenance period of its status. Article 103 of the collective agreement of this case provides that the representative bargaining trade union becomes the subject of labor-management consultation and agreement after the conclusion of the collective agreement, thereby specifying the authority to exercise the said power of representation in the bargaining trade union as well as the subject of consultation and agreement, Articles 18 (Temporary Retirement), 26 (Organization of Employment Stabilization and Commission), 29 (Separation of Juristic Persons), 30 (Service or Subcontract), 44 (Amendment of Rules of Employment), 75 (Ex Post Facto Measures of Health Examination), 79 (Measures at the time of Occurrence of Disasters), and 83 (Preparation of Measures to Prevent Advanced Diseases) of the collective agreement of this case. Thus, Article 103 of the collective agreement of this case is not a violation of the obligation of fair representation.

2) As to Article 48 of the detailed collective agreement guidelines

According to the purport of the instant decision on review, Article 48 of the Detailed Guidelines for the instant collective agreement does not violate the duty of fair representation, considering the following: (a) there are several trade unions in the company or all of its anniversary for the establishment of a new company may result in unfair consequences; (b) all of the previous anniversary for the establishment of the Intervenor and the Internive Trade Union, which was set as a paid holiday; (c) production tea and cost-bearing incurred therefrom; and (d) the establishment anniversary of the establishment of the representative bargaining trade union was set as a paid holiday from 2015.

B. Relevant provisions

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) From March 30, 2012, the Intervenor engaged in collective bargaining to conclude wages and collective agreements with the Plaintiff from March 30, 2012, but did not reach agreement, and engaged in intermittent strikes from July 13, 2012 to August 6, 2012, and the Conveven trade union, a company-level trade union, was established on July 26, 2012 during the strike period.

2) On August 21, 2012, the Plaintiff received a written request for negotiation from the Intervenor and the denex trade union and publicly announced the confirmation of the trade union requesting bargaining, including the following contents.

At the time of the date of the request for bargaining by the representative of the trade union, which was included in the main text, Nonparty 1351, the intervenor on the date of the request for bargaining by the number of union members, and Nonparty 229, the Conven trade union Nonparty 229, August 13, 2012

3) The Plaintiff agreed on August 28, 2012, and agreed on the request for individual bargaining, and carried out individual collective bargaining with the Contin trade union. On September 11, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a wage agreement with the Contin trade union. The said wage agreement included a provision that the Plaintiff shall pay the said trade union members the special encouragement amount of KRW 5,500,000 (the special encouragement amount of the unsatisf and the single compromise amount of KRW 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 under the collective agreement).

4) The Plaintiff paid KRW 5,500,000 to the employees, other than the members of the Connife trade union and the Plaintiff’s officers. In 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,000,000,000 to the members of the Connife trade union on the condition of “two consecutive years of dispute”.

5) From September 27, 2012 to February 6, 2014, the Intervenor was conducting negotiations for the conclusion of wages and collective agreements with the Plaintiff from September 27, 2012, and from February 2014, but the two sides of the conclusion of collective agreements are not narrower, and the Intervenor first entered into the wage agreement and received special encouragement payments, etc. from the members of the Connife trade union and the office employees in 2012, but the Plaintiff was unable to negotiate with the wage agreement separately.

6) On September 11, 2012, when the Plaintiff and the Conven trade union concluded a collective agreement, the number of the Intervenor’s members decreased by 46, and the number of the members of the Conven trade union exceeded 292.

7) The Intervenor’s members (including Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, who were dismissed by the Plaintiff on September 12, 2012) asserted that “the wage agreement entered into by the Conveven trade union shall also apply to the Intervenor’s members pursuant to Article 35 of the Trade Union Act,” or that “the Plaintiff discriminateds against the Intervenor’s members against the Intervenor’s members or employees in comparison with those of the Conven trade union’s members or office employees without any reasonable reason.” The Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Gahap102474) declared that the wage agreement entered into by the Conven trade union on September 2, 2015 cannot be deemed as effective as the Intervenor’s members, but only paid special encouragement to the Intervenor’s members or office employees, and that the Plaintiff did not pay the Intervenor’s special encouragement to the Intervenor’s members on the ground that it continued to comply with the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the Intervenor’s members or the Intervenor’s employees on the ground that it continued to engage in the business.”

8) By 2014, the Plaintiff was on each anniversary of the establishment of the Intervenor and the Conven trade union, and the factory operation was not suspended due to the date of establishment anniversary of the establishment of a new political party. The factory operation rate on the date of establishment anniversary of the Conven trade union in 2014 was 78%.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

A) The purpose of the system to simplify bargaining windows

Since January 1, 2010, the Trade Union Act amended by Act No. 9930 of Jan. 1, 2010 permits the establishment of multiple trade unions that share the subject of organization in a workplace unit from July 1, 2011, as well as minority trade unions have been recognized as the subject of enjoying the right to collective bargaining and the right to collective action. Article 29-2 of the Trade Union Act, in principle, requires bargaining trade unions to determine how to grant the right to collective bargaining when there are multiple trade unions in a business or workplace.

The purpose of the system of simplification of bargaining windows under the Trade Union Act is to effectively resolve practical problems that may arise when two or more trade unions exist in a business or workplace, that is, the conflict between a trade union and a trade union that may arise when multiple trade unions are allowed to exercise their independent bargaining rights, and the increase in bargaining efficiency and the increase in bargaining cost arising from repeating negotiations on the same matters, which may arise when multiple collective agreements are concluded, difficulties in labor management that may arise when multiple collective agreements are concluded, despite the provision of labor with the same or similar contents, such as unreasonableness arising from the application of different working conditions according to the trade union affiliated with the trade union (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2011Hun-Ma338, Apr. 24, 2012).

B) Contents of the Fair Representation obligation

Articles 29(2) and 29-5 of the Trade Union Act restrict the right to collective bargaining and collective action of a small number of trade unions which have not become a representative bargaining trade union by recognizing the leading right to collective bargaining and dispute only to a representative bargaining trade union. If a collective agreement is concluded by a representative bargaining trade union, other trade unions which participated in the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows are bound to be able to be able to be able to do so. Therefore, Article 29-4(1) of the Trade Union Act imposes the duty of fair representation on a representative bargaining trade union and an employer to prevent discrimination against a small number of trade unions that may arise therefrom

This duty of fair representation imposed on the representative bargaining trade union provides the basis of democratic legitimacy that the collective agreement concluded by the representative bargaining trade union provides the minority trade union participating in the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows and its members.

The purpose of the current Trade Union Act which permits multiple trade unions is to introduce the system of simplification of bargaining windows, while imposing duties of fair representation on representative bargaining trade unions and employers is to limit the right to collective bargaining and collective action by the simplification of bargaining windows to a certain degree. However, even in such a case, it is inevitable to function as an institutional device to ensure that the Constitution does not infringe on the essential contents of fundamental rights granted to trade unions and workers, and further, it can be said that the constitutional legitimacy of the system of simplification of bargaining windows can be secured only if the representative trade union and the employer's duty of fair representation are properly observed.

From this point of view, the duty of fair representation should be observed not only in the collective bargaining process or the contents of the collective agreement, which is the result thereof, but also in the case of interpreting and applying the collective agreement during the period in which the representative bargaining trade union maintains its status, and it should be carried out not only in substantive aspects but also in procedural aspects in the whole process of mediating interests between trade unions and members before and after negotiations.

Furthermore, in cases where an employer or a representative bargaining trade union treats another trade union participating in the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows differently from a representative bargaining trade union in accordance with the interpretation of the language and text of Article 29-4(1) of the Trade Union Act which provides that “the representative bargaining trade union and an employer shall not discriminate against the trade union participating in the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows or its members without reasonable grounds, it is reasonable to deem that the employer or the representative bargaining trade union violated the duty of fair representation unless it is acknowledged that such discrimination has reasonable grounds by the affirmative assertion and certification of the employer or the representative bargaining trade

C) Scope of authority of representative bargaining trade union

(1) Articles 29-2(1) and 29(2) of the Trade Union Act confers the legal status of a trade union that has become a representative bargaining workplace with an employer to conduct collective bargaining and sign collective agreements. Furthermore, Article 29-5 of the Trade Union Act confers the legal status of a trade union that has become a representative bargaining workplace with an employer to conduct collective bargaining and sign collective agreements. In addition, Articles 2 subparag. 5 (Definition of the Parties to Labor Relations), 29(3) and (4) (where a representative bargaining trade union exists, Articles 30 (Principle of Delegation of Rights), 37(2) (Direction of Labor Relations), 38(3) (Responsibility of Industrial Actions), 42-6(1) (person who notifies workers of essential work to maintain industrial action), 44(2) (Prohibition of Payment of Wages during the period of industrial action, Article 55(3) (2) (b) of the Trade Union Act confers the right to participate in collective bargaining before and after the commencement of collective agreements and the right to participate in special labor union (3).

However, as seen earlier, in light of the fact that the current Trade Union Act permits multiple trade unions to grant individual bargaining rights to multiple trade unions under the Daejeon regime that guarantees the three labor rights of a small number of trade unions and their employees, the primary purpose of the system is to prevent the reflections between trade unions that may arise in the event of granting individual bargaining rights to a small number of trade unions, conflicts between trade unions and employers, and degradation of the efficiency of bargaining, etc., it is not to say that the representative bargaining trade union has a comprehensive authority over the issues that may arise in the course of the conclusion of a collective agreement and the implementation of a collective agreement beyond the additional authority required in the process before and after the conclusion of the

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the authority granted by the Trade Union Act to the representative bargaining trade union as above is limited and heated.

(2) In addition, if a representative bargaining trade union should additionally conclude a collective agreement on working conditions, etc. which are not prescribed in the collective agreement during the period of maintaining the status of a representative bargaining, it is reasonable to deem that it is necessary to modify the contents of a collective agreement in accordance with the case of a collective agreement. Furthermore, there is a case where it is necessary to allow a representative bargaining trade union to consult with an employer even in the case where the specific implementation of the matters prescribed in the collective agreement is at issue during the period of maintaining the status of a representative bargaining trade union. However, the collective agreement has the substantive provisions related to the working conditions, but it is limited to cases where there is issue of interpretation or specific implementation methods in relation to the application thereof, and it is not permissible to grant an exclusive right to consult with the representative bargaining trade union even in cases where the contents related to the working conditions of the collective agreement are delegated in blank without any substantive delegation of authority. Furthermore, if relevant statutes plan to follow a separate organization or procedure

2) Whether Article 103 of the instant collective agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “instant collective agreement”) violates the duty of fair representation under Article 103 of the instant collective agreement

A) Whether there exists discrimination or not

Article 103 of the collective agreement of this case provides that a trade union that is the subject of the labor-management agreement refers to a representative bargaining trade union in the deliberation, resolution, and labor-management consultation, and a trade union that is the subject of the labor-management agreement in Articles 18, 26, 29, 30, 44, 75, 79, and 83 of the collective agreement of this case. The above provision provides that where there arise a matter involving a change in future working conditions, it shall be limited to the representative bargaining trade union that gives the authority to consult and present opinions to the plaintiff and excludes the participation of the intervenor who is a small number of trade unions from the source. Thus, the above provision can be

B) Whether there are reasonable grounds for discrimination

Pursuant to Article 103 of the collective agreement of this case, the matters granting authority, such as consultation, only to the representative bargaining trade union, do not constitute the matters listed in the Trade Union Act as the authority of the representative bargaining trade union. In addition, the above matters are not uniformly defined in the actual contents of the working conditions itself, but are prescribed in the procedures for consultation among the labor and management in the event that a matter that may affect the working conditions in the future arises, so it should be deemed that the establishment of fair procedures regulations in the collective agreement itself constitutes the content of the duty of fair representation, and it is more true with respect

If a representative bargaining trade union participated in the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows with an employer on behalf of the trade unions participating in the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows and obtained the employer's right to participate in the determination of working conditions, such results should also be shared by a small number of trade unions, and it cannot be a full-time share of a representative bargaining trade union. Of course, the share of participation distributed to a small number of trade unions may be allocated according to the size of its members, and it may be reasonable, but it may not be permitted to entirely deprive of the opportunity for participation.

On the other hand, if it is permitted to grant a representative bargaining trade union the right to consult with an employer and exclude a small number of trade unions only when a matter that may affect working conditions in the future occurs, it may be the same as delegation of substantive contents by reserving the contents of the collective agreement in consultation with both parties and reserving the abstract provisions related to working conditions in the collective bargaining agreement. However, this would be a result contrary to the purport of allowing multiple trade unions in that it is likely that the right to collective bargaining and collective action of a small number of trade unions to be temporarily restricted at the stage of collective bargaining or the conclusion of collective agreements may be ordinarily punished by the collective bargaining channel unification system.

In this regard, when the result of the agreement, consultation, etc. between the employer and the representative bargaining trade union on a specific case contains the contents that discriminate against the minority trade union without any justifiable reason, it may also be considered to have the minority trade union dispute the violation of the duty of fair representation. However, Article 29-4(2) of the Trade Union Act limits the period of dissatisfaction to the Labor Relations Commission within three months from the date of conclusion of the collective agreement where the contents of the collective agreement violate the duty of fair representation, and thus, it may be interpreted that the opportunity to request correction after the said period is interrupted. In addition, even if the point of time when specific discrimination occurred as a result of consultation, it cannot be a fundamental solution in that the object of remedy is limited to individual discrimination and it does not correct the provision itself of the collective agreement that causes discrimination.

In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the foregoing evidence, it is difficult to deem that there is a reasonable ground to allow Article 103 of the instant collective agreement to participate in consultation and agreement only with the representative bargaining trade union, a representative bargaining trade union, to exclude the Intervenor from participating.

Therefore, Article 103 of the collective agreement of this case violates the duty of fair representation, and the core of the violation is not that the intervenor did not guarantee the right to participate in consultation and agreement on an equal basis with the representative bargaining trade union, but the opportunity to participate itself was prevented at source.

(1) Article 18 subparag. 8 of the instant collective agreement states that a member’s leave may be ordered after a labor-management consultation if there is an inevitable reason for the management and business operation of the company. The said provision does not apply to a worker’s application, but also to an employer’s order against the employee’s will. In the event of a reason for temporary retirement, the said provision requires the Plaintiff to determine whether or not the period of temporary retirement and the period of temporary retirement through a consultation between the Plaintiff and the Conven Trade Union. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Intervenor’s members have procedural fairness in itself as they are fundamentally prevented the opportunity to represent the Intervenor’s member through a participant. In addition, in a case where the issue is whether the Intervenor’s member’s member’s temporary retirement is a large number of trade unions, it is difficult to find reasons for excluding the Intervenor’s participation to represent the interests of the member.

(2) Articles 26, 29, and 30 of the instant collective agreement contain matters that may directly affect the status of workers, such as the division, merger, transfer, and subcontract conversion of companies. In such a case, matters concerning employment security and working conditions are agreed upon by the Plaintiff and the Conven Linen Trade Union pursuant to Article 103 of the instant collective agreement.

As such, deprivation of the opportunity from the Intervenor to promote the interests of its members on important matters that may directly affect the status of workers is an infringement of the Intervenor’s fundamental authority, who is the subject of the right to collective bargaining.

In particular, in light of the process in which the consortiumn trade union is organized and the number of its members increases rapidly, as shown in the judgment of this case, the Plaintiff violated the neutrality obligation because the Plaintiff did not pay special encouragement money only to the intervenor members, etc., it is difficult to expect the contactn trade union to fully represent the interests of the intervenor members, and the situation in which the above provisions are scheduled is expected to take place is that there are many cases where the interests conflict between the contactn trade union members and the intervenor members, it is necessary to protect the union members belonging to the Plaintiff by participating in consultation with the Plaintiff.

(3) Articles 75, 79, and 83 of the instant collective agreement relate to post-examination measures, measures to prevent disasters, and changes in work methods that may affect workers’ health, and include matters related to the material working environment, such as safety and health.

In addition, it is difficult to exclude the Intervenor from the discussion structure for the unification of working conditions, as well as other statutes prescribe separate procedures for deliberation and resolution.

In other words, important matters concerning industrial safety and health in a workplace under the Occupational Safety and Health Act are to be deliberated and decided by the occupational safety and health committee composed of the same number of workers and employers (Article 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act), and workers' members participating in the above committee are composed of workers' representatives and their designated workers. The representative of workers is the representative of the labor union if there is a labor union consisting of a majority of workers, and workers representing a majority of workers if there is no such labor union (Article 25-2, Paragraph

In addition, the "Act on the Promotion of Workers' Participation and Cooperation" (hereinafter "Labor Participation Act") requires a labor-management council to be established with a consultative body that discusses working conditions, working environment, settlement of workers' grievances and institutional improvements in the workplace (Articles 4 and 20). The worker members participating therein shall be elected by workers, but the "representative of a trade union and a person commissioned by the trade union if there is a trade union organized by a majority of workers" (Article 6 (2)).

As can be seen, it seems unnecessary to establish a separate review or consultation body on the matters cited in Articles 75, 79, and 83 of the instant collective agreement in the relevant statutes to allow only representative bargaining trade unions to consult with the Plaintiff separately from the collective agreement. Furthermore, since the contact transfer trade union is not a majority trade union, it does not meet the requirements of the representative of workers as stipulated in the relevant statutes. Nevertheless, if a separate organization as stipulated in the relevant statutes is operated under the relevant statutes, where a separate organization is operated under the relevant statutes, it may be avoided the provisions of the relevant statutes that stipulate that the representative of workers shall be elected in cases where there is no major trade union, thereby preventing workers who belong to a small number of trade unions from being elected or infringing on the authority of the representative of workers elected.

(4) Article 44 of the instant collective agreement provides that a union shall consult with the amendment of the rules of employment, and that a union shall obtain the consent of the union in the event of unfavorable amendments to the rules of employment.

However, since the members of a consortiumn trade union do not reach the majority of all workers of the plaintiff, the above provision does not conform with Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which provides that if the business operator amends the rules of employment, he or she shall hear the opinions of a trade union organized by a majority of workers of the business or workplace or

Since Article 44 of the above collective agreement cannot substitute the above provision of the Labor Standards Act, notwithstanding the provision of the above collective agreement, the opinion of the majority of workers should be heard when formulating or amending the rules of employment, and the consent of the majority of workers should be obtained when revising disadvantage. However, it cannot be deemed unfair just in that the Intervenor’s participation in the amendment process of the rules of employment is entirely excluded due to the provision of the above collective agreement.

(5) The Plaintiff asserts that only the representative bargaining trade union can achieve the unification of working conditions, which is the purpose of the bargaining channel unification system, as the subject of consultation.

However, since the unification of working conditions is not the only purpose of the bargaining channel unification system, and the current trade union law does not set the bargaining unit by the same or similar labor relations, in principle, but exceptionally recognize the bargaining channel separation system in case that the unity of working conditions is strongly requested, the main purpose of the bargaining channel unification system is not the unification of working conditions, but the stability of bargaining relations and the efficiency of bargaining rather than the unification of working conditions.

The stability of such bargaining relations and the efficiency of bargaining can be maintained and promoted by fairly representing the total amount of workers in determining working conditions through collective bargaining by a representative bargaining trade union. As such, it is not permissible to exclude the participation of a small number of trade unions from the decision-making structure of working conditions in order to achieve the unification of working conditions. Furthermore, the unity of working conditions should not be undermined by allowing the participation of a small number of trade unions in such decision-making structure.

Therefore, the above assertion by the prior plaintiff is rejected on a different premise.

(6) The plaintiff asserts that the representative bargaining trade union is a legal entity separate from the trade union which participated in the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows and has the authority to represent the trade union participating in the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows as a party to the negotiation and the conclusion of an agreement, but it does not change the content of the duty of fair representation imposed on the representative bargaining trade union depending on how to grasp the legal status of the representative bargaining trade union. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion does not affect the judgment of the court that the plaintiff violated the duty of fair representation.

3) Whether a collective agreement violates the duty of fair representation under Article 48 of the detailed guidelines

A) Whether there exists discrimination or not

Article 48 of the detailed guidelines of the collective agreement provides that only the date for the establishment anniversary of the shipping trade union and the denmark trade union shall be designated as a paid holiday and treat the participants differently from the shipping trade union.

B) Whether there are reasonable grounds for discrimination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by adding the purport of the entire pleadings to the facts acknowledged earlier, it is difficult to deem that there is a reasonable ground to place discrimination against the Intervenor by setting only the anniversary of the establishment of the contact and the escape trade union as a paid holiday.

(1) The fact that a collective agreement stipulates a labor union anniversary for the establishment of a labor union as an agreed holiday does not merely mean that workers are simply secured paid holidays, but may serve as a major opportunity to raise the sense of belonging to the labor union or community awareness as members of the labor union to which they belong.

(2) The Plaintiff had operated both the Conven trade union and the Intervenor’s anniversary of the establishment of the company until 2014 as a paid holiday. However, it seems that there was no particular problem such as the operation rate of a factory and other business issues.

(3) In order to contribute to the division of bargaining windows to resolve the opposition between trade unions, an employer and a representative bargaining trade union should represent and fairly consider a small number of trade unions. As seen earlier, in light of the process of increasing the number of union members and the determination of the instant judgment, etc., it does not seem that there is a smooth relationship between the Conven trade union and the participant. In such circumstances, allowing the participant’s employees to take off on the date of establishing the Conven trade union, which might cause conflict between trade unions, and this is contrary to the purport of the single bargaining channel unification system.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the retrial of this case is lawful, and the plaintiff's request of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)