[1] In the absence of a trade union, the method of the worker's consent required to revise the existing working conditions under the rules of employment more disadvantageous than the previous one, and the meaning of "the employer's intervention or interference" as its passive requirement

[2] Whether the previous rules of employment are applied as it is to workers who were succeeded to by a comprehensive succession of employment (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that workers' consent was given in a collective decision-making manner in case where workers' consent was obtained in a case where workers' consent was given by holding briefing sessions by each department, each place of business, and each branch to explain the general succession of the relevant business and the change in the payment rate of retirement allowances

[4] In a case where the rules of employment were prepared and revised disadvantageous to workers without workers' consent by collective decision-making method but are recognized as reasonable by social norms, whether such rules of employment can be applied (affirmative), and the criteria for determining the reasonableness by social norms

[1] If an employer intends to revise the existing working conditions to the disadvantage of an employee due to the revision of the rules of employment, the consent of the employee under the previous working conditions or the method of collective decision-making by the employee who was under the application of the rules of employment is not effective, and if there is no trade union, the consent is required by a majority of the employees by the method of meeting, and the consent by the method of meeting is allowed in exchange for opinions between the employees under the condition that the employer's involvement or interference is excluded by the organization or unit department of the business or the workplace. Here, the employer's intervention or interference means the case where the employer forces the employer to give consent by clearly or implied means to the extent that the employer's autonomous and collective decision-making is likely to be impeded, and there is no unfair interference or interference between the employer and the employer in explaining and publicizing the contents of the rules of employment to be modified.

[2] In a case where the employment relationship is comprehensively succeeded, an employee shall also maintain the same employment relationship as that of the previous employment relationship. In order for the employer to unilaterally amend the employment rules or apply the rules of employment of a corporation which has succeeded to unfavorablely than the previous employment relationship, there must be circumstances such as the consent by collective decision-making method of the employee group that has maintained the previous employment relationship. Barring such consent, the employer may not unilaterally change the previous employment conditions to the disadvantage of the employee or apply the rules of employment of a corporation which succeeded to unfavorable than the previous employment conditions. In such cases, the previous employment rules shall

[3] In a case where an explanatory meeting is held by each department, each place of business, and each sub-office to explain the matters to change the working conditions and the rate of payment of retirement allowances according to the comprehensive succession of the relevant business, and the employees' consent is obtained, the case holding that the employer's consent was obtained by the collective decision-making method since it was merely to explain and publicize the changed contents to the employees, and it cannot be deemed that there was unfair intervention or interference

[4] In principle, the employer’s unilateral formulation and revision of new rules of employment is not allowed to impose unfavorable working conditions by deprived of the rights and interests of the employee’s vested in the employer through the unilateral formulation and revision of new rules of employment. However, even if the preparation and revision of the rules of employment were to be considered in both aspects of the necessity and content, the application of the rules of employment may not be denied solely on the ground that there is no consent by the collective decision-making method of the employee under the previous conditions of employment or the rules of employment, in a case where it is recognized that there is a rationality in social norms to the extent that the legal nature of the rules of employment is recognizable. Meanwhile, the existence of rationality under social norms should be determined by comprehensively considering the degree of disadvantage suffered by the employee due to the amendment of the rules of employment, the content and degree of the necessity of the employer’s alteration, the reasonableness of the contents of the rules of employment after the amendment, the developments leading to negotiations with the labor union, etc., response to the labor union or any other worker, and the domestic general situation as to the same kind of matter.

[1] Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act/ [2] Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act/ [3] Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act/ [4] Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act

[1] [4] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23185, 23192 (Gong2004Sang, 976) decided May 14, 2004 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da18322 decided Nov. 14, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2322) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da54909 decided Mar. 11, 2005 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da41659 decided Dec. 26, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 517) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 99Da70846 decided Jan. 5, 2001; Supreme Court Decision 2004Da264972 decided Jun. 27, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2004Da721674 decided Nov. 26, 2004)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Lee Hy-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Korea Marine Pollution Prevention and Removal Association (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na93348 decided April 3, 2009

All the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the consent of workers was obtained in comprehensive succession of July 31, 1998 and in amending the salary regulations of December 31, 1999 by collective decision-making method of December 31, 199; or

In order for an employer to amend the existing working conditions to be disadvantageous to workers due to the amendment of the rules of employment, consent by the method of collective decision-making of the workers who were subject to the previous rules of employment or the rules of employment is not effective. If there is no trade union, consent by the method of conference shall require the consent of the majority of the workers. The consent by the method of conference shall also be allowed in exchange for opinions between the workers under the condition that the intervention or interference of the employer is excluded by the organization or unit of a business or one workplace. Here, the employer’s intervention or interference means the case where the employer forces the workers to consent by an explicit or implied method to the extent that it interferes with the autonomous and collective decision-making of the workers, and the previous rules of employment shall not be deemed that there is any undue intervention or interference between the employer and the previous rules of employment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da18322, Nov. 14, 2003; 2004Da31294, May 29, 2004).

원심판결 이유와 기록에 의하면, 한국해양오염방제조합(이하 ‘방제조합’이라 한다)은 구 해양오염방지법(2007. 1. 19. 해양환경관리법 제정으로 폐지되기 전의 것)에 의하여 해양에 배출된 기름 등 폐기물에 대한 효율적인 방제와 방제에 관한 교육·훈련 및 기술개발을 통하여 방제능력을 향상시킴으로써 해양환경을 보전하기 위하여 설립된 법인으로 방제조합의 운영 및 사업에 소요되는 자금은 정부로부터의 지원금 등을 재원으로 조성하고, 방제조합은 사업계획과 예산운영계획 및 결산서를 매년 해양수산부장관에게 제출하여야 하는 사실, 방제조합은 이른바 IMF 금융위기사태를 맞아 공기업 경영혁신의 일환으로 1998. 1.경부터 1999. 9.경까지 사이에 수회에 걸쳐 해양수산부에 경영혁신추진계획을 제출하였는데, 그 내용 중에 관련 사업의 통폐합, 정년단축 및 퇴직금지급률 조정 등이 포함되어 있는 사실, 방제조합은 해양수산부의「한국컨테이너부두공단 예선사업 한국해양오염방제조합 이관」방침에 따라 한국컨테이너부두공단(이하 ‘부두공단’이라 한다) 예선사업을 1998. 7. 31.자로 포괄인수하였는데, 방제조합은 예선사업에 종사하는 종업원을 전원 인수하고 인수한 종업원에게 퇴직금 지급규정을 적용함에 있어 종전 부두공단의 사업장에서 근무하던 근속년수를 통산하여 적용하기로 한 사실, 1998. 7. 31.자 예선사업 포괄인수 당시 부두공단의 취업규칙에는 직원의 정년에 관하여 일반직 2급 이상은 61세, 일반직 3급 이하 및 기능직은 59세로 규정되어 있고, 방제조합의 인사규정에는 관리직(일반직) 2급 이상의 직원의 정년은 61세, 그 외의 경우 58세로 규정되어 있는 사실, 포괄인수 당시 부두공단의 직원이었던 소외 1 과장과 소외 2 부장은 포괄인수에 따른 근로조건, 급여, 직급 변경을 설명하기 위하여 1998. 8. 11.부터 같은 달 14.까지 사이에 예선사업 각 사업소·지부를 방문하여 직원들에게 근로조건의 차이, 직급조정 등을 설명한 사실, 그 후 예선사업 각 사업소·지부 직원 186명이 1998. 8. 1.자로 ‘공단의 기존 제규정을 대신하여 조합의 인사규정, 보수규정, 퇴직금규정 등 조합 소정의 규정에 의한 근로조건에 따르겠다’는 취지의 각서를 작성하여 방제조합에 제출한 사실, 한편, 해양수산부는 1999. 1.경 방제조합에 공공기관 퇴직금제도 개선방안을 통보하였고, 이에 따라 방제조합은 1999. 4. 21.경 퇴직금제도 개선방안에 대하여 부서장회의를 거치는 등으로 퇴직금제도를 누진제에서 단수제로 변경하는 내용의 보수규정 개정안을 마련하였으며, 1999. 7.경 당시 방제조합 기획과장이던 소외 1 과장이 기중기 선단과 몇 개 지부를 방문하여 위 보수규정 개정에 관한 설명회를 개최하였으며 그 무렵 방제조합 각 부서·사업소·지부 단위로 직원 약 330명이 ‘본인은 국내 경제의 어려움을 극복하기 위한 노력의 일환으로 추진하고 있는 근로조건의 개정(퇴직금지급에 관한 기준 등 : 별첨 참조)에 대하여 본인의 자유의사로써 동의서를 제출합니다. 아울러 추후 위와 관련하여 어떠한 이의제기도 하지 않을 것을 서약합니다’는 내용의 “임·직원 보수규정개정 관련 동의서”에 서명하였는데, 위 동의서에는 “직원보수규정 신·구조문 대비표”가 ‘별첨2’로 첨부되어 있고, 위 ‘별첨2’에는 기존의 누진율에 의한 퇴직금지급률을 ‘근속 1년에 대하여 근로기준법에서 정한 1개월분의 평균임금을 퇴직금으로 지급한다’고 적시되어 있는 사실, 방제조합은 1999. 12. 29. 운영위원회에서 퇴직금 누진제를 단수제로 변경하는 보수규정 개정을 의결하였는데, 그 내용에 의하면, ‘퇴직금은 1년 이상 근속한 직원에게 지급하며, 근속 1년에 대하여 근로기준법에서 정한 1개월분의 평균임금을 퇴직금으로 지급하고, 이 규정 시행 당시 재직중인 직원에 대하여 1999. 12. 31.까지의 퇴직금을 일괄 정산하여 지급하되, 2000. 1. 1.부터 발생된 퇴직금은 새로이 개정된 규정을 적용한다’고 되어 있는 사실, 방제조합은 1999. 12. 31. 본부 각 팀(실)과 10개 지부장에게 위 보수규정 개정에 관한 동의서 확보를 요청하는 공문을 발송한 사실, 이에 따라 본부 각 팀(실)별, 각 지부별로 “임·직원 보수규정 개정 및 퇴직금 일괄정산실시”라는 제목의 용지의 ‘가(가), 부(불)’란에 소속 근로자들의 서명을 받는 방법으로 동의서를 받았고, 당시 직원 총 365명 중 361명이 ‘가’란에 서명하고 4명이 ‘부’란에 서명한 사실, 그 후 근로자들 전원에 대하여 1999. 12. 31.까지의 근속기간에 대하여 퇴직금 중간정산이 실시된 사실, 원고 2는 부두공단 소속 근로자였다가 예선사업이 방제조합으로 포괄승계됨에 따라 1998. 7. 31.자로 방제조합 소속 근로자가 되었고, 원고 1은 1998. 8. 1. 방제조합에 입사하였는데, 원고들은 방제조합 또는 부두공단의 관리직(일반직) 3급 이하 직원이며, 앞서 본 각서 및 동의서에 모두 동의하는 취지로 서명한 사실을 알 수 있다.

In light of the above facts, the government-led restructuring of public enterprises was under way following the IMF crisis. Since the consolidation of the relevant business, the reduction of retirement age, and the adjustment of the payment rate of retirement allowances were core matters for the restructuring of public enterprises, it seems that all the Plaintiffs were known at the time, and it was difficult to gather the entire workers due to tugboat business or pest control association's small industrial accident across the coast. It was also difficult for them to hold an explanatory meeting for each department, place of business, or branch office on July 31, 1998, and the change of the terms and conditions of employment by 198 and the change of the employees' agreement on December 31, 1999, 197, 300 and the employees' opinions were not required for the change of the terms and conditions of employment by 190 shares or branch office, and 97 employees' opinions were not required for the change of the terms and conditions of employment by 19 shares or the change of the employees' opinions. As such, the Plaintiffs' opinions and the change of the terms and conditions of employment plan were 98 employees' opinions.

2. Whether the amendment of personnel regulations of December 31, 1998 is reasonable by social norms;

In principle, the employer's unilateral formulation and revision of new rules of employment does not allow the imposition of unfavorable working conditions by depriving of the rights and interests of the workers they have through the preparation and revision of new rules of employment. However, even if the preparation or revision of the rules of employment is considered in both aspects of the necessity and content, if it is deemed reasonable under the generally accepted social norms to the extent that the legal norm of the provisions is acceptable, its application may not be denied solely on the ground that there is no consent by the collective decision-making method of the workers under the previous rules of employment or the rules of employment. On the other hand, the existence of rationality under the generally accepted social norms should be determined by comprehensively considering the degree of disadvantage suffered by the workers due to the revision of the rules of employment, the content and degree of the necessity of the employer's alteration, the appropriateness of the rules of employment after the amendment, the developments leading to negotiations with the labor union or other workers, the response to the same kind of situation, etc., but if the rules of employment is modified disadvantageous to the workers, the Labor Standards Act should be interpreted strictly.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, it is just that the court below's decision that the amendment of personnel regulations on December 31, 1998 to the personnel management regulations on December 31, 199 cannot be deemed reasonable by social norms is justified, and there is no violation of law such as misapprehension

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, all the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)