[1] The purport of the collective agreement provision providing that a trade union shall obtain prior consent when taking disciplinary action against a union member

[2] The case where disciplinary dismissal against an employer conducted without satisfying the requirements for prior consent of a trade union under the collective agreement can be deemed valid

[1] If the collective agreement, etc. provides that the employer shall obtain prior consent or consent from the labor union in taking a personnel disposition or to take a personnel disposition in consideration of the consistency of the opinion through discussions on the labor union and personnel disposition, a personnel disposition without going through such procedures shall, in principle, be deemed null and void. However, it is not possible to deny the employer’s exercise of the right to take a disciplinary measure against the employee who is an employee who is an employee of the labor union, and as such, it cannot be interpreted that the employer’s exercise of the right to take a disciplinary measure against the employee who is an employee of the labor union, regardless of any circumstances, can exercise the right to take a disciplinary measure

[2] The right to prior consent of a trade union shall be exercised reasonably on the basis of the principle of good faith. Therefore, in a case where there is a serious act of distribution on the part of the trade union, which caused a defect in the procedure of the employer, or where a person subject to disciplinary action directly damages the company, which is an employer, by committing a serious illegal act, and where it is objectively obvious that the company falls under the grounds for disciplinary action, and even though the company has faithfully and seriously made efforts to reach an advance agreement with the trade union, it is recognized that the trade union did not reach an advance agreement by opposing the disciplinary action without reasonable grounds or reason, or where the trade union itself is deemed to have renounced the exercise of the right to prior consent, the dismissal without

[1] Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Articles 4 and 30 of the Labor Standards Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da32074 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 435), Supreme Court Decision 92Da45735 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 2249), Supreme Court Decision 92Da50263 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2257), Supreme Court Decision 92Da34926 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2576), Supreme Court Decision 91Da30620 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2594, 197Da979495 delivered on September 13, 1994) 97Da196975 delivered on September 196, 195

Plaintiff (Law Firm Han General Law Office, Attorneys Jeong Tae-tae et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Suwon Automobile Sales Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeon Soo-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu6543 delivered on March 23, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

In light of the above facts, the court below held that the company was unable to reach an agreement with the Plaintiff on May 3, 198. It was hard for the Plaintiff to enter the 19-year labor union and the 1-day branch office of the company for which the first time was ordered to dismiss the Plaintiff, and that the company was dismissed by the Local Labor Relations Commission on July 10, 198, and that the company's request for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on July 2, 1999 was dismissed. Article 30 of the company's collective agreement provides that "the company shall obtain the consent of the union in advance for disciplinary action such as dismissal and suspension of its officers and full-time officers," and that the company was unable to reach an agreement with the Plaintiff on the 9-year labor union's 19-year labor union's 9-year labor union's 19-year labor union's 19-year labor union's 19-year labor union's 19-year labor union's 19-year labor union's 17 p.

In a case where an employer has to obtain prior consent or consent from a trade union or to hold a consultation on personnel disposition with a trade union to take such measures, the personnel disposition without going through such procedures, in principle, shall be deemed null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da50263, Jul. 13, 1993; 92Da34926, Aug. 24, 1993; 91Da30620, Sept. 28, 1993; 93Da5017, Sept. 13, 1994; 93Da5017, Sept. 16, 1994; 200Da196399, Sept. 16, 200). This is an employer’s failure to exercise the right of disciplinary action against an employee who belongs to the employer’s inherent authority, and thus, it should be objectively decided that the employer’s right of disciplinary action against the employee should not be exercised.

From this point of view, the court below is just in holding that the company's disciplinary action against the plaintiff without satisfying the requirements for prior consent of the labor union as stipulated in the collective agreement is valid, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for prior consent of the union.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)