[1] Where an employer pays a certain amount of money to the full-time officer of a trade union under a collective agreement, whether such payment can be deemed as remuneration for labor (negative)

[2] In a case where there are reasonable grounds in light of various circumstances, such as changes in economic and social conditions after the enforcement of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment System, whether an employer may change the continued existence of the full-time system and the specific method of operation (affirmative

[3] The case holding that in a case where Party A’s act of full-time employment at a higher-level organization of the company B after becoming a member of the company B and then suspended the payment of wages to Party A under the collective agreement between the company B and the trade union, it is valid to suspend payment of wages after the agreement with the trade union in a situation where there are reasonable grounds to change the method of operating full-time employment with Party B

[1] A full-time officer of a trade union is recognized where he/she maintains a basic labor-management relationship with an employer and does not provide labor under a labor contract while his/her status as a worker, and only engages in affairs of a trade union is determined by a collective agreement or consent of the employer. Since an employer is exempted from the duty to pay wages in response to the exemption from the full-time officer’s duty to provide labor, even if the employer pays certain money to the full-time

[2] The full-time union membership system is basically maintained by a labor-management agreement based on the employer’s consent, as well as whether to recognize the full-time union as a form of offering convenience to a trade union, as well as the specific system operation such as the appointment and dismissal procedure of the full-time union officers, the period of full-time, the number of full-time officers, and the treatment for the full-time officer. Thus, in a case where there are reasonable grounds in light of various circumstances, such as changes in economic and social conditions after the full-time union implementation, changes in company management status, and trends in labor-management relations, the employer may change the existence of the full-time union membership system and the detailed management method

[3] The case holding that in a case where Gap was a member of Eul company's superior organization of Eul company after becoming a member of Eul company, and thereafter Eul was to suspend the payment of Gap's wages under the collective agreement between Eul company and Eul company, it is sufficient to recognize that Eul company entered into a collective agreement with Eul company to reduce the size of full-time officer, and that Eul company's suspension of payment of wages to Gap is valid in a situation where there are reasonable grounds to change the method of management of full-time officer system, and there is a need to adjust Eul company's voluntary retirement, return of bonus, etc. to overcome the management crisis, and as part of it, there is a need to adjust the amount of full-time officer's treatment for the full-time officer, etc.

[1] Article 24 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [2] Article 24 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [3] Article 24 of the Trade Union

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da4815, 4822, 4839 decided September 2, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1945)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Law, Attorney Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Electronic Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorney Seo-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Na31267 decided November 5, 2010

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A full-time officer of a trade union is recognized as a person who does not provide labor prescribed in a labor contract while maintaining a basic labor-management relationship with the employer, and engages exclusively in affairs of the trade union, and is exempt from the employer’s duty to pay wages in response to the exemption of the full-time officer’s duty to provide labor. As such, even if the employer pays a certain amount to the full-time officer of the trade union in accordance with a collective agreement, labor-management practice, etc., it cannot be deemed as wages as remuneration for labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 203Da4815, 4822, 4839, Sept. 2, 2003).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on its adopted evidence: the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company on July 6, 1987 and started to work as the planning department of the Masung-do headquarters of the Korea Workers' Federation of Labor Union, the superior organization of the defendant company's labor union, from March 4, 1997 to the planning department of the Masung-do headquarters of the Korea Workers' Federation of Labor Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Workers' Federation") as the planning department; since around 2006, he was in charge of the duties of the head of the branch office and completed his work as the full-time officer by January 20, 209, the term of office; the defendant company paid the plaintiff the same salary as the previous salary during the former work period, and notified the plaintiff of his intention to suspend the payment of wages from March 5, 2007 to the Masung-dong Branch of Korea on March 5, 2007.

In light of the records, in full view of the circumstances such as the developments leading up to the Plaintiff’s full-time service in the Korea Labor Union and the content and exclusive nature of its duties at the workplace, and the provisions of the collective agreement of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff does not constitute the full-time officer of the Defendant Company’s labor union as prescribed by the collective agreement of the Defendant Company, but it is clear that the Plaintiff is the full-time officer of the labor union who has been engaged in the affairs of the union in a superior labor organization with the consent of the Defendant

Furthermore, the above fact-finding by the court below contains the purport of rejecting the claim in this case seeking payment of wages from March 2007 to the defendant company by asserting that the plaintiff did not take full charge of the trade union, that is, the plaintiff was not the full-time officer of the trade union, and that the defendant company had agreed to receive wages from the defendant company during the period of service at the above Hasung branch as to the terms of dispatch of the Korea Labor-Management Branch.

As alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below did not err by omitting judgment on the ground of appeal by the plaintiff and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

It is basically maintained by a labor-management agreement based on the employer’s consent in light of various circumstances, such as changes in economic and social conditions, changes in company management conditions, trends in labor-management relations, etc. after the enforcement of the full-time system, as well as whether the full-time system is recognized in the form of a convenient provision to a trade union. Therefore, if reasonable grounds exist, the employer can change the existence of the full-time system and the specific operating method of the full-time system through fair procedures, such as agreement with the trade union and the establishment of a reasonable grace period.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on its adopted evidence, determined that the sales volume of the defendant company increased by 131,217,565,885 won in 2001, and reduced to 42,010,046,227 won in 206, and that the defendant company took measures such as voluntary retirement and return of bonuses due to the aggravation of sales profit and profit structure under the labor-management agreement. According to the collective agreement in 2006 of the defendant company, according to the collective agreement in 2006, the defendant company may order temporary retirement for a period of time when a member who has served for more than one year is engaged in affairs other than the defendant company with the name of the defendant company or with the permission of the defendant company (Article 22(5)), and the rules of employment of the defendant company did not pay wages during the period of temporary retirement (Article 23(3)). The defendant company opened the meeting minutes of the labor-management council under the name of the representative director and the chairperson of the labor-management union and the defendant company.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant Company took various various measures, such as voluntary retirement and return of bonus, to overcome the management crisis due to the aggravation of sales and profit structure, and as a part of it, there was a need to adjust the size of the full-time employee system or the treatment of the full-time employee at an appropriate level. As such, it is sufficient to recognize that the full-time employee of a trade union and the full-time employee of a trade union in a workplace agreed to reduce the size of the full-time employee of a trade union by entering into a collective agreement with the trade union, and that the full-time employee of a trade union in a superior organization, such as the Plaintiff, agreed to change the number of full-time employee of a trade union, and that the Defendant Company’s suspension of payment of wages to the Plaintiff

In addition, as seen above, the defendant company paid wages to the plaintiff as part of the convenience provision for the full-time officer of the labor union, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant company and the plaintiff reached a special agreement on individual working conditions. Thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal on this premise cannot be accepted

Although the reasoning of the lower court partially inappropriate, it is justifiable to have rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the collective agreement between the Defendant Company and the trade union, which decided to suspend the payment of benefits to the Plaintiff, is valid.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to employment contracts as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

This part of the ground of appeal is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)