The effect of disciplinary dismissal in violation of the disciplinary regulations that allow a trade union to participate in the composition of the disciplinary committee.

If disciplinary action is taken in violation of the disciplinary procedure despite the fact that the labor union's representative is required to participate in the composition of the disciplinary committee under the collective agreement or rules of employment or disciplinary action based thereon, such exercise of the disciplinary right is invalid as an action contrary to the justice in the procedure regardless of whether the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized.

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Da375Da1591 Decided July 8, 1986 (Gong1986, 996) (Gong1986, 996) 90Da8077 Decided July 9, 1991 (Gong191, 2112) 93Da28553 Decided March 22, 1994 (Gong194, 1306)

Plaintiff

Seoul General Law Firm, Attorneys Song Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na71866 delivered on December 7, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (the supplementary appellate brief is examined to the extent of supplement in case of a supplemental appellate brief being filed after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief).

If disciplinary action is brought against a trade union in violation of such disciplinary procedure despite the fact that the collective agreement or rules of employment or disciplinary action regulations based on them allow the representative of the trade union to participate in the composition of the disciplinary committee, such exercise of disciplinary action rights shall be deemed null and void as an action against the justice of the procedure regardless of whether the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da8077 delivered on July 9, 191).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the disciplinary committee's composition of the defendant company's disciplinary committee shall be composed of eight persons each by the employer and four workers and the disciplinary committee at the time of the defendant's disciplinary action against the plaintiff is without dispute between the parties as to the facts that the defendant was composed only of four disciplinary committee members of the employer, and that the disciplinary committee at the time of the defendant's disciplinary action against the plaintiff. However, although the labor union requested the recommendation of disciplinary committee members upon the worker's resignation from the worker's disciplinary committee, the union constituted the disciplinary committee only by the employer's disciplinary committee members but it was inevitable for the union to take disciplinary action against the plaintiff due to the worker's refusal to recommend the disciplinary committee members, and the defendant's assertion that the disciplinary proceedings in this case does not contain any defect, the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-chul cannot be trusted and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the

The dismissal of the instant disciplinary action against the Plaintiff is valid since the grounds for disciplinary action, which is a substantive requirement, are recognized, and the procedural defect in the composition, etc. of the disciplinary committee, is merely an independent opinion that does not affect the validity of the instant disciplinary action, and cannot be accepted.

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)