(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.10.16. 선고 2013구합7742 판결

1. On December 19, 2012, the corrective order issued by the Defendant regarding a collective agreement concluded on April 15, 2012 between the Plaintiff and the National Health Insurance Corporation A of the Korea Public Transport and Social Services Trade Union shall be revoked.

2. The name of the Plaintiff’s National Health Assistant Service and workplace trade union shall be dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, the portion arising between the plaintiff, the National Health Insurance Corporation, the workplace trade union and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff, the workplace trade union A and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim

The order of Paragraph (1) and the defendant shall revoke a corrective order issued under the collective agreement concluded on June 29, 2012 between the plaintiff, the National Health Insurance Corporation, the workplace labor union, and the National Health Insurance Corporation, respectively, on December 19, 2012.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s workplace trade union (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s union”) is a company-level trade union established by the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”), and the Plaintiff’s national public transportation and social service trade union A (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s branch”) is an affiliated branch of the Korea Public Transport and Social Services Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as “the first”) which is an industrial trade union that combines workers in the public and social service sector. On November 2012, 2012, 3,40 members of the Plaintiff’s association were 6,300 members of the Plaintiff’s association, 6,300 members of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s branch were 10 regional headquarters and 146 branches of the Plaintiff’s branch, 12 branches of the Plaintiff, and 234 subdivisions.

B. On March 21, 2012, the Plaintiff’s branch notified the Corporation that B was elected as the chairperson of the emergency countermeasures taken by the Plaintiff’s branch. On March 29, 2012, the chairperson of the public transportation labor union delegated matters concerning the negotiation of the collective agreement in 2011 concluded between the public transportation labor union and the Corporation. B entered into a collective agreement with the Corporation on April 6, 2012 (hereinafter “instant collective agreement”) including the following matters, and affixed seals affixed to the first physical agreement in the name of the public transportation labor union. In addition, on April 15, 2012, the Plaintiff’s branch agreed to the limit of exemption from working hours at 14,00 hours.

[Specialized] The Corporation and public transportation labor unions are based on the fundamental spirit of the Constitution and labor-related laws, under the principle of good faith, mutual understanding between labor and management, autonomous bargaining, and the principle of good faith. The purpose of promoting the welfare of union members is to conclude a collective agreement and to ensure that both parties comply with it and implement it. Article 1 (Negotiating Parties) is an organization negotiating wages, labor conditions, and other matters for union members of the Plaintiff’s branch: Provided, That the same shall not apply in cases where the union delegates it to the Plaintiff’s branch and higher organization. Article 16 (Activities Activities during the Working Hours) (1) of the Union is, in principle, an association activity shall be performed during working hours: Provided, That in any of the following cases, the branch shall be notified in writing to the Corporation and the parties may be engaged in the union activity even during working hours. In this case, the working hours shall be deemed to be worked. 9. The meeting, such as non-standing president and grievance consultation (6 days a year), the secretary general and grievance consultation (12 hours a year), and the full-time officer (17).

C. On June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff Union entered into a collective agreement with the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Group II collective agreement”), which includes the following matters (hereinafter referred to as “instant collective agreement”). Moreover, on the same day, the Plaintiff Union agreed on the limit of exemption from working hours at 8,000 hours.

Article 16 (Activities of Partnership during the working hours) (1) In principle, partnership activities shall be performed during off-duty hours: Provided, That in any of the following cases, partnership activities shall be notified in writing to the GEPS and the relevant parties may also be performed during the working hours. In such cases, partnership activities shall be deemed to be performed during the working hours. In such cases, conference, grievance counseling, etc. (five day per month), meeting of the chief of the non-permanent regional headquarters, meeting of the non-permanent secretariat and grievance counseling, etc. (six day per year), meeting of the head of the chapter and grievance counseling, etc. (six day per month), and Article 17 (Exemption from Working Hours and Full-time Officer), and 17 (Period of Duty and Full-time Officer) (1) The

D. On December 19, 2012, pursuant to Articles 21, 24(2) and (4), 31(3), and 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Relations Adjustment Act”), the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff’s branch to rectify the Plaintiff’s violation of Article 16(1)9 of the 1 Organization Convention, Article 16(1)8 of the 201 collective agreement, and Article 16(1)8 of the 2013 collective agreement (hereinafter “the collective agreement of this case”) by adding up Article 16(1)9 of the 1 Organization Convention and Article 16(2)8 of the 201 Organization Convention to “the collective agreement of this case” and Article 16(1)9 of the 201 Organization Convention.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Since the parties to the first collective agreement to issue a corrective order against the Plaintiff’s branch are public transportation labor, the Defendant is obliged to order the public transportation labor union, other than the Plaintiff’s branch, to correct the provisions of the first collective agreement. However, the Defendant ordered the correction of the provisions of the first collective agreement with the Plaintiff branch as the other party, so the corrective order against the Plaintiff branch is invalid by designating the other party to the disposition.

2) Corrective order against the plaintiffs

A) The purpose of adopting the working hours exemption system under Article 24(4) of the Trade Union and Labor Act is that the activities of a small and medium-scale trade union might decline if the full-time workers of the union are prohibited. Article 24 of the Trade Union and Labor Act provides for the prohibition of payment of wages to the full-time workers of the union and the exemption system from working hours. The part of the union activities of a non-full-time worker of the union is guaranteed as paid under other Acts, such as the Act on the Promotion of Workers’ Participation and Cooperation. There is no reason not to prohibit the payment of wages to the non-full-time workers of the union under the labor-management agreement. The Ministry of Employment and Labor interpreted that the non-full-time workers of the union can be determined as paid in a collective agreement within a reasonable level on the part of the union's working hours. Considering the fact that Article 81(4) of the Trade Union and Labor Act prohibits the full-time workers of the union from providing wages to the full-time workers of the union, Article 24(2) and (4)4) of the Act does not apply to the full-time workers.

B) Even if a trade union non-full-time union member’s paid activity does not constitute an excessive level to the extent of undermining its original duty to provide labor, it does not violate Article 24(2) and (4) and Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. The Plaintiffs need to regularly hold meetings in order to resolve the grievances, etc. of union members throughout the country. The Plaintiffs are merely paid union members with a large number of the heads of branches and chapters, and the total amount of paid union hours is larger than the total amount of paid union hours. In light of the fact that the paid union members are not much paid union hours, the hours recognized as paid pursuant to Article 24(2) and (4) and Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act do not constitute an excessive level.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c)boards;

1) Determination as to the corrective order against the Plaintiff’s branch

In light of the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the arguments, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s chapter was a branch of an industrial trade union, which is an industrial trade union, and that the chairperson of the public transportation labor union delegated the chairperson of the Plaintiff’s branch with the matters concerning negotiations of the collective agreement in 2011 concluded between the public transportation labor union and the Corporation on March 29, 2012, and B signed the first collective agreement with the Corporation on April 6, 2012, and the first collective agreement explicitly states that the first collective agreement is concluded between the Corporation and the public transportation labor union, and that the first collective agreement is concluded between the Corporation and the Corporation, not between the Plaintiff and the Corporation. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the first collective agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff’s chapter and the public transportation labor union and the Corporation, not between the Plaintiff and the Corporation, and that the Defendant’s order to correct the collective agreement should be made in writing with the signature or seal of both parties to the collective agreement, and that the agreement should be made within 15 days of its conclusion.3 days of the agreement.

2) Determination as to corrective orders against the Plaintiff Union

Each provision of the former part of Article 24(4) and the proviso of Article 81(4) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act explicitly prescribes the subject of exemption from working hours as “worker” rather than “full-time officer”. A trade union may, even if there is no full-time officer or even if there is a full-time officer, require the full-time officer to conduct paid union affairs with the consent of the employer from among the general members. If Article 24(4) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is interpreted as not applicable to a full-time officer, unreasonable results arise that a full-time officer may engage in unpaid paid union activities without the application of the limit of exemption from working hours, if there is a collective agreement or the consent of the employer. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the exemption from working hours under Article 24(4) of the Trade Union

According to Articles 24(4) and 24-2 of the Trade Union and Labor Act, exemption from working hours is allowed only in cases where it is necessary to maintain and manage a trade union for the purpose of developing a sound labor-management relationship with an employer, such as consultation, negotiation, grievance settlement, and industrial safety activities, etc., within the limits publicly notified by the Minister of Employment and Labor, by the Deliberation Committee on Exemption from Working Hours. However, the provisions of the Group 2 agreement recognize exemption from working hours as a paid payment for the union activities of a non-full-time employee within the limits of exemption from working hours and exceeding the limits of exemption from working hours, and thus, it violates Articles 24(4) and 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Act without any need to determine whether the paid hours are excessive. Accordingly, the corrective order against the Plaintiff Union is legitimate regardless of whether the paid hours

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.