(a) If the rules of employment are modified disadvantageous to workers retroactively, whether the consent of each worker is required;

(b) Validity of the retirement allowance rules which cover the amount calculated under Article 28 (1) of the Labor Standards Act.

A. In order for an employer to amend the existing working conditions to disadvantage workers due to the amendment of the rules of employment, it is necessary to obtain consent from the collective decision-making method of the workers group that was subject to the previous rules of employment. The consent method requires the union if there is a labor union consisting of more than half of the workers, and the union if there is no such union, the amendment of the rules of employment shall not be effective unless there is a consent by the above method. However, the amendment of the rules of employment shall be valid without obtaining the consent of the individual workers, unless there is a consent or agreement by such method. The same shall apply where the amendment of the rules of employment disadvantages the existing working conditions or the rights of the workers retroactively due to the amendment

B. Article 28(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides for the lower limit of the amount of retirement to be paid to the retired employee by the employer. If the amount of retirement calculated by the provisions of a collective agreement, etc. enforced at the time of the retirement of the employee exceeds the amount calculated pursuant to the said provisions, the retirement allowance system stipulated by the collective agreement, etc. is valid. It cannot be deemed that the part of the provisions of the collective agreement, which is unfavorable to the employee, is removed separately due to its inconsistency with the provisions

A. Article 95(1)(b) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 4099, Mar. 29, 1989)

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 91Da3031 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1280), Supreme Court Decision 91Da31753 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 213), Supreme Court Decision 93Da14493 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2409 delivered on February 24, 1987) (Gong1987, 506)

Plaintiff 1 and five others, Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and two others

Attorney Kim Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 93Na3493 delivered on August 13, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the submission period).

1. The court below's finding that the rules on retirement allowances for employees of the defendant company as of September 1, 1987, including the method of calculating retirement allowances for the period from the date of entry to December 31, 1987, obtained the consent by the collective decision-making method of the worker group, is just in light of the records, and there is no error of law of experience or violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to argue.

2. The employer needs to obtain consent from a collective decision-making method of a workers group that was subject to the previous rules of employment in order to amend the existing rules of employment to disadvantage workers. If there is a trade union consisting of a majority of workers, the employer must obtain consent from a majority of the workers at the meeting method if there is no such union, and the modification of the rules of employment shall not be effective unless there is such consent by the above method. However, as long as there is a consent or agreement by the above method, the modification of the rules of employment shall be valid without obtaining consent from the individual workers, and the same shall apply to the case where the amendment of the rules of employment makes unfavorable changes to the existing terms of employment or workers' rights retroactively (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da31753 delivered on Nov. 24, 192). Accordingly, the judgment below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the waiver of retirement benefits already occurred or the lack of reasons, as in the theory of lawsuit. It is not reasonable to argue that the precedents cited in this case are different.

3. Article 28(1) of the Labor Standards Act is deemed to provide the lower limit of the retirement amount to be paid to the retired employee. Thus, if the retirement amount calculated by the retirement allowance regulations, such as a collective agreement, etc., implemented at the time of the employee’s retirement exceeds the amount calculated under the above provisions of the Labor Standards Act, the retirement allowance system under the collective agreement, etc. is valid. Since part of the provisions on retirement allowance of a collective agreement is different from that of the above Labor Standards Act and is unfavorable to the employee, it cannot be deemed that only that part is removed and that it is invalid in violation of the above Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1409, Feb. 24, 1987). Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment to the same purport is justifiable, and there is no error

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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)