In a case where the contents of a trade union's request for layoff purport that it shall not be dismissed, whether it may be subject to collective bargaining (negative), and whether an industrial action to achieve matters that cannot be subject to collective bargaining can be justified for its purpose (negative)

Since the so-called implementation of layoff, which is due to urgent managerial necessity, is an employer's managerial measure, if the contents of the request of the labor union for layoff, purport that the employer should not be dismissed, it is fundamental limitation on the employer's right of management, so it cannot be subject to collective bargaining in principle, and a strike seeking to achieve collective bargaining matters cannot be justified.

Article 4, Article 29, Article 37(1) of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Article 31 of the Labor Standards Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Busan General Law Office (Attorney Yoon In-man)

Ulsan District Court Decision 99No204 delivered on October 19, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the so-called implementation of layoff, which is due to urgent managerial necessity, is an employer's managerial measure. If the contents of the request of the labor union for layoff, purport that the employer should not be dismissed, it is fundamental limitation on the employer's right of management and thus, it cannot be subject to collective bargaining in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da30242 delivered on March 25, 1994). An industrial action seeking to achieve matters that cannot be collective bargaining matters, is justifiable (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da4042 delivered on September 30, 1994).

According to the facts and records established by the court below, Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. will implement layoffs for business reasons as stated in the decision of the court below, and notified the labor union of the plan for layoffs to suggest measures to avoid layoffs and criteria for selecting those who are subject to dismissals, and requested consultation on them. However, the labor union has not been able to accept layoffs itself in accordance with the labor union's policy such as democracy and labor union's total labor union, and requested supplementary bargaining for collective agreement and eventually led to industrial action as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged (hereinafter referred to as "industrial action in this case"). The labor union's assertion that it cannot be accepted entirely is a complete rejection of the employer's right to receive layoffs itself, and therefore it cannot be subject to collective bargaining, and the industrial action in this case for the purpose of accomplishing this argument cannot be deemed legitimate in its purpose.

In addition, as long as the purpose of the industrial action in this case is not justifiable, even if the industrial action was conducted before the industrial action was conducted under the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act or there was no illegality in the means and methods of the industrial action, it does not make the industrial action in this case legitimate. Thus, the industrial action in this case shall not be exempted from being unlawful without any further review.

Furthermore, in light of the records, the decision of the court below that maintained the judgment of the court of first instance is acceptable since the industrial action in this case seems to be justifiable even in its procedure, method and method, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the legitimacy of the industrial action, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)