(a) Purport of the provisions of Article 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act which provides for an application for remedy such as unfair dismissal of workers;

B. Whether a trade union may be an applicant for remedy pursuant to the above paragraph (a)(negative)

A. Article 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act provides that when an employer has dismissed, laid off, suspended from office, reduced wages, or other disciplinary action against a worker without any justifiable reason under paragraph (1) of the same Article, the worker concerned may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for remedy for the dismissal without a justifiable reason by providing a separate administrative remedy system by the Labor Relations Commission in addition to the judicial remedy method by the general court for the dismissal without a justifiable reason, the employer’s purpose is to ensure that the “worker concerned” who has been subject to a disadvantageous measure by the Labor Relations Commission receives remedy for the dismissal with no justifiable reason

B. Article 40 to Article 44 of the Trade Union Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the request for remedy from dismissal, etc. without justifiable reason, and the procedure of review. However, the scope of application mutatis mutandis shall be limited to the " procedure" in which the Labor Relations Commission applies for remedy to the Labor Relations Commission, and the Labor Relations Commission examines it. Therefore, in applying for remedy against unfair dismissal, a person who can be the applicant is only the "worker in question" subject to a disadvantageous measure such as dismissal, and the trade union shall not be included therein.

(b)Article 27-3(b) of the Labor Standards Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5884 delivered on May 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 2028) 92Nu6082 delivered on November 13, 1992 (Gong193, 136)

Hyundai Motor Trade Union Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and three others

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu24450 delivered on June 12, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Article 27-3 (1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that when an employer dismisses, temporarily retires, suspends, reduces wages, or takes other disciplinary measures against a worker without any justifiable reason, the worker concerned may apply for remedy to the Labor Relations Commission, in addition to the method of judicial remedy by a general court for dismissal without any justifiable reason, the purpose of the provision is to ensure that “the worker concerned” who is subject to a disadvantageous measure under the Labor Relations Commission’s administrative remedy system is more simple and prompt and low costs and is entitled to remedy for dismissal with no justifiable reason. Furthermore, the above provision is not premised on the existence and activities of a trade union organized as an employee. Accordingly, the provision of Articles 40 through 44 of the Labor Standards Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the request for remedy such as dismissal without justifiable reason and the procedure for review. However, the scope of the application mutatis mutandis shall be deemed to be limited to “procedures” in the Labor Relations Commission and the request for remedy against unfair dismissal shall be deemed not to include “the worker concerned who is subject to the unfavorable measure such as dismissal”.

Article 40 (1) of the Trade Union Act that the court below may make a request for remedy to the same purport is just, and it does not apply to the procedure of remedy such as unfair dismissal, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 27-3 (2) of the Labor Standards Act. The argument is groundless.

On the second ground for appeal

In the reasoning of the judgment, the court below found that the decision of dismissal on the application for remedy of unfair labor practices by the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission at issue in this case was June 26, 191, which was delivered to the plaintiff union. The court below's aforementioned fact-finding can be accepted in comparison with the records, and there is no illegality of finding the facts erroneous as to the rules of evidence as pointed out in the process. The argument is groundless.

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