(a) Method of remedying workers against unfair labor practices, such as dismissal;

B. Whether the disciplinary committee can determine the legitimacy of the disciplinary action by including the grounds that are not the grounds for disciplinary action (negative)

C. Whether the act of hiding academic background, career, etc. can be a ground for disciplinary dismissal (affirmative)

A. The procedure of the Labor Relations Commission’s order for remedy to an employer as stipulated under Articles 42 and 43 of the Trade Union Act is a procedure for remedy of public law regarding unfavorable disposition such as dismissal, etc. constituting unfair labor practice, and does not directly affect the legal relationship between the employer and the worker. Thus, the worker is entitled to seek remedy for infringement of rights by a civil dispute, separate from the procedure for remedy of rights, on the ground that dismissal, etc. is an unfair labor practice.

B. If the company's rules of employment or disciplinary regulations stipulate that disciplinary action against workers shall be conducted through a resolution of the disciplinary committee, the legitimacy of the disciplinary action shall be determined by the disciplinary committee on the grounds of which the disciplinary action is the cause of disciplinary action, and the legitimacy of the disciplinary action shall not be determined by including the grounds for which the disciplinary committee

C. The concealment of academic background or career or the false entry of a resume is an act that may affect the formation of trust between labor and management, and if it is deemed that the company would not employ the aforementioned person as a member, it may serve as a justifiable ground for disciplinary action.

(a)Article 27(a) of the Labor Standards Act; Articles 42 and 43(b) of the Trade Union Act;

Plaintiff 1 et al., and five plaintiffs' attorneys at bar and Kim Jong-jin

[Defendant-Appellant-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na3158 delivered on March 19, 1986

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' attorney's grounds of appeal.

(1) Ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' allegation of nullification of dismissal on the ground of unfair labor practices, since the procedure for remedy of dismissal on the ground of unfair labor practices is administrative litigation and it cannot file a claim for nullification of dismissal in civil litigation, and it is without merit, since it is not possible to file a claim for nullification of dismissal on the ground of unfair labor practices.

However, the procedure of the Labor Relations Commission’s order for remedy for employers as stipulated in Articles 42 and 43 of the Trade Union Act is a procedure for remedy for damages under the public law regarding unfavorable disposition, such as dismissal falling under unfair labor practices, and does not directly affect the legal relationship between the employer and the worker. Thus, the worker can seek remedy for damages by dispute over the legal effect of dismissal, etc. in civil procedure, separately from the above procedure for remedy for damages.

In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on remedy order for unfair labor practice, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Ground of appeal No. 2

If the company's rules of employment or disciplinary regulations stipulate that disciplinary action against workers shall be conducted through a resolution of the disciplinary committee, the propriety of such disciplinary action shall be determined by the disciplinary committee based on the grounds which were the grounds for disciplinary action, and the legitimacy of the disciplinary action shall not be determined by including the grounds for disciplinary action which are not discussed by

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the disciplinary dismissal disposition against plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 of this case against plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 was justified and entered as one of the reasons for the judgment of the court below, that the plaintiff 1 entered the academic background of college graduation in the resume as high school graduation, and that the plaintiff 2 recognized the additional one-year experience from the defendant company by making a false entry more than one year by making a false entry, and that the plaintiff 3 covered the fact that he concealed the academic career of the plaintiff 1, 2, and 3

The act of concealment of academic background or career or false statement of personal history such as the above decision of the court below is an act that may affect the formation of trust between labor and management, and if the defendant knew of such personal history so, it can be a legitimate ground for disciplinary dismissal. However, according to the evidence Nos. 4-1 (Report of Personnel Committee) and 5-1 (Minutes of Personnel Committee) records, the above academic background is not included in the grounds for disciplinary action which the personnel committee concurrently held by the defendant company's disciplinary committee against the plaintiff Nos. 1, and the above career or concealment is included in the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, but the above career or concealment is included in the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. However, it is recognized that the plaintiff No. 3 had continued to employ the plaintiff Nos. 3 after receiving a letter of resignation from the same plaintiff. Thus, the court below's dismissal of the plaintiff No. 1 as the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff No. 3 cannot be viewed as unlawful.

(3) Ultimately, the part of the judgment below against plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 cannot be maintained as it is because there is a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

(1) Ground of appeal No. 1

The issue is that the decision of the court below erred by the labor union asserted by the plaintiffs as legitimate establishment, but the decision of the court below is not a case of determining whether the labor union was duly established or not the defendant's liability is established on the premise that the labor union was duly established.

(2) Ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, among the disciplinary reasons which the defendant company submitted to the personnel committee against the plaintiffs, it cannot be recognized that the plaintiffs' act of dividing the printed materials referred to in subparagraph 1 of the labor union news from 07:50 to 40 minutes of Sep. 17, 1984 to workers or putting them in the personal clothes book, thereby impairing internal order and causing damage to the company. Rather, the delayed work is due to the fact that the defendant company collected the printed materials from the workers in the playground to prevent the distribution of printed materials by gathering them in order to prevent the distribution of printed materials by the plaintiffs, and thus, the court below held that it is unlawful to hold the plaintiffs liable for dismissal.

According to the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the direct cause of delay of work exists in the defendant's above inducement, distribution, storage, and collection of the defendant's above inducements, as well as the act of distributing the defendant's inducements. However, according to the evidence Nos. 4-1 (referring to the personnel committee) and evidence Nos. 5 (Employment Rules) as reasons for disciplinary action against the plaintiffs, the defendant clearly stated that the defendant violates Articles 55 and 102 of the Rules of Employment on the ground that he distorted the contents of the inducements as well as delays of work due to the above inducements and distorted the contents of the inducements, thereby impairing the company's reputation. Article 55 of the above Rules of Employment lists those who have disturbed or damaged the company's business (Article 7) as reasons for dismissal (Article 102 of the Rules of Employment) and those who interfered with labor and management cooperation by spreading false facts, Article 102 of the Rules of Employment is listed as reasons for disciplinary action (Article 9).

Ultimately, the above disciplinary action against the plaintiffs is clear that there is a reason to distort internal order and disrupt labor-management cooperation by distributing falsely printed materials, in addition to that causing delay in work due to distribution of printed materials. Thus, the court below should have deliberated and judged whether the contents of the above printed materials were false and should have deliberated and judged whether such distribution would disrupt in-house order and disrupt labor-management cooperation between the defendant company and the labor-management cooperation. However, the court below cannot be said to have erred in this regard.

(3) Ultimately, it is evident that the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant cannot be maintained as it is for the reason for reversal under Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, without any need to determine

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)