A. Whether a dismissed worker falls under “third party” as provided in Article 13-2 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act in a case where the dismissed worker contests the validity of dismissal by filing a lawsuit, etc. within a reasonable period of time (negative)

B. Determination criteria for “reasonable period” in the above paragraph (a)

(c) The case holding that it cannot be deemed that an action for nullification of dismissal was brought within a reasonable period of time, even though it was received or detained by the police, since it was temporarily set aside one year and four months after receiving and resigned a considerable amount of money from the employer as retirement allowance, etc.

A. Even if an employee who has a direct labor relationship with the employer is dismissed by the employer, the dismissal shall not be included in the “third party” which is prohibited from intervention under Article 13-2 (Prohibition of Third Party Intervention) of the Labor Dispute Adjustment Act, in a case where the dismissal is asserted within a reasonable period of time as an unfair labor practice or as null and void, and the Labor Relations Commission or the court files a lawsuit seeking a remedy for remedy of unfair labor practice or seeking a confirmation of invalidity of dismissal, and where the dismissal is asserted to continue to hold the status of the employee or the membership or officer of the trade union concerned, and the industrial action is conducted within the labor-management relationship in question.

B. In order for an employee to be allowed to participate in an industrial action, like an employee who has a direct labor relationship with the employer, the employee must not dispute the validity of the dismissal by filing a lawsuit for remedy of unfair labor practices with the Labor Relations Commission or the court for remedy of the invalidity of the dismissal during a reasonable period of time, and the term “within a reasonable period of time” in this context refers to an application for remedy within three months from the date of the occurrence of unfair labor practices under Article 40(2) of the Trade Union Act in the case of unfair labor practices, so it may be interpreted as within the statutory period of time. However, in the case of an action for nullification of the dismissal, the period of filing a lawsuit for invalidation of the dismissal cannot be uniformly determined because the period of filing a lawsuit is not stipulated in our law, and it shall be reasonably determined as to whether the dismissed employee has a ground that impedes in filing a lawsuit for nullification of the dismissal or conducting the lawsuit, and the period necessary for determining and preparing whether to institute a lawsuit for nullification of the dismissal within the reasonable period of time under social norms.

C. The case holding that the defendant cannot be deemed as a person entitled to participate in an industrial action by treating the defendant as an employee who has a direct labor relationship with the employer, on the ground that he did not dispute the validity of dismissal, since he did not dispute the validity of dismissal within a reasonable period of time after his dismissal, since he did not dispute the validity of dismissal, since he did not dispute the validity of dismissal, since he did not dispute the validity of dismissal within a reasonable period of time after his dismissal, since he did not treat the defendant as a person entitled to participate in an industrial action by treating the same as the employee who has a direct labor relationship with the employer, in case where he filed a lawsuit to nullify dismissal and directly participated in the industrial dispute.

(b)Article 13bis of the Trade Dispute Adjustment Act;

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 89Do1579 Decided Nov. 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 272) (Gong1991, 272) decided Nov. 8, 1991 (Gong192, 152)

Defendant

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 90No697 delivered on May 1, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if an employee who has a direct labor relationship with the employer is dismissed by the employer, the dismissal is not included in the "third party" which is prohibited from intervention in Article 13-2 (Prohibition of Third Party Intervention) of the Labor Dispute Adjustment Act, and it is also the opinion of the Labor Relations Commission or the court that ruled that the dismissal is unfair labor practice or is null and void within a reasonable period of time, and disputes the validity of dismissal by filing a lawsuit to seek relief from unfair labor practice or to confirm the invalidity of dismissal, and that the employee continues to hold the status of the employee, or the member or officer of the labor union concerned, and that an industrial action is conducted within the labor-management relationship in question, the employee is not included in the "third party" which is alleged by the plaintiff.

However, as above, the reason why a member of a union is interpreted as above, respect the essence of a trade union as an autonomous organization, and the labor dispute in which the two parties conflict with each other must independently and independently resolve independently and independently through negotiations and conciliation on an equal footing. As such, the result that an employee loses his/her status as a worker by unilateral dismissal, which leads to the loss of his/her status as an employee, and at least to intervene in an industrial action, is to guarantee the equal status between the union and the company in the labor dispute, as it is at least during the dispute over the validity of the dismissal, and as such, it does not purport to allow the intervention in the industrial action against the general workers who did not have a direct labor relationship with the employer.

Therefore, in order for a dismissed worker to be allowed to participate in an industrial action, as well as the worker who directly has a labor relationship with the employer, it shall not dispute the validity of the dismissal by filing a lawsuit for remedy of unfair labor practices with the Labor Relations Commission or the court for remedy of the invalidity of the dismissal, or for remedy of the invalidity of the dismissal. The term "reasonable period" in this context means within the statutory period, as the case of unfair labor practices requires a remedy within 3 months from the date of unfair labor practices under Article 40 (2) of the Trade Union Act, it may be interpreted as within the statutory period. However, in the case of a lawsuit for nullification of dismissal, the filing period is not stipulated in our law, and therefore, it shall not be uniformly determined. In this case, the time when the dismissed worker becomes aware of the grounds for invalidation of the dismissal, whether there exists a lawsuit for nullification of the dismissal, or whether there is any obstacle to the filing of the lawsuit for nullification of the dismissal, and the period necessary for the determination and preparation of whether to institute a lawsuit for nullification of the dismissal within the reasonable period.

In light of the nature of labor disputes where prompt resolution is required even from the worker who maintains his/her own and his/her family's livelihood through wage income as well as the employer who must conduct business activities with the best facilities and organization (in particular the personnel system) by coping with the changing economic situation, even if the period for which the dismissed worker is to file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of dismissal in a way of disputing the validity of the dismissal to continue to intervene in the industrial action is limited as above, it shall not be deemed that the dismissal worker unfairly infringes on the rights of the worker or the trade union, unless the period is reasonably determined in accordance with social norms.

2. On November 5, 1979, the court below decided that the defendant's act of resignation of 35,000,000 won was 35,00 won as a result of negotiations with the company's retirement pay and consolation money, and that the defendant's act of 10,00,000 won was 10,000 won as well as 20,000 won under the labor union's labor union's act of 197.10,000 won was 4,000 won and was 197,000 won and was 197,000 won and was 4,000 won and was 197,000 won and was 197,000 won and 198,00 won and 200,00 won and 197,00 won and 198,00 won and 20,00 won and 19,00 won.

If the evidence of the court of first instance employed by the court below or accepted by the court below is examined by comparing the records of the evidence admitted by the court below, such fact finding by the court below is just, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of finding facts in violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the process, and if the facts were as determined by the court below, even if the defendant received or was detained in several times after submitting a resignation certificate, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as legally impeding the defendant from disputing the validity of dismissal, and (in accordance with investigation record 6 book 58 pages, 59 pages, etc., the defendant was admitted as a member of the meeting of the dismissed workers at around October 198, and was assigned to the secretary general at the end of that month, and was found to have been dismissed for a considerable period of time after the cancellation of detention, and as such, the defendant did not have any unlawful act as 4th of the labor union's retirement allowance for which the defendant had been dismissed for a considerable period of time after being dismissed as a part of the defendant's labor union's work.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)