beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the guilty part against Defendant E, G, and N and the case of Defendant J 2010 order 4706.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. The grounds for appeal by Defendant H, J, and Q as to the facts constituting the crime of the 2010 senior group 4706 case in the first instance judgment constituted an unfair labor practice as “the act of controlling or intervening in the organization, operation, and activities of a trade union” under Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, if an employer has expressed his opinion through a speech, in-house broadcast, notice, posting, letter, etc. as to the grounds for appeal by the employer, together with the contents of the opinion expressed in cases where it is acknowledged that such act was conducted, taking into account the situation, time, place, method, impact on the operation or activities of the trade union, etc.
However, since an employer is also entitled to express his/her own opinion, an employer has an intention to control or intervene in the organization, operation and activities of a trade union, unless there is a threat of disadvantage, such as disciplinary action, or a promise to provide benefits, or an element that may undermine the autonomy of a trade union, such as the circumstances of other control intervention, even if the strike is scheduled to do so, by simply expressing a critical opinion on the activities of the trade union or by holding a collective briefing session, etc. against an employee to explain and seek understanding of the company's business situation, policy direction, etc. or by explaining the legitimacy and legitimacy of the strike and the impact of the strike on the company or workers
It is not readily concluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15497, Jan. 10, 2013). In full view of the circumstances in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the following circumstances, that the said Defendants interfered with the promotion of management normalization for the traffic of the victim AM corporation and the improvement of corporate financial structure.
Accordingly, this part of the facts charged is convicted.