In violation of the collective agreement to prescribe the operating rules of the Monetary Punishment Committee in consultation with the labor union subdivision (negative), whether there is the validity of the provisions of the Monetary Punishment Committee itself (negative) and whether the disciplinary dismissal is appropriate in accordance with the collective agreement and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act (affirmative)

If a collective agreement provides for the operation rules of the standing committee in consultation with the branch of the trade union and the company, the above operation rules shall be established by means of collective bargaining stipulated in the collective agreement, and the standing committee shall not independently provide for the standing committee. Therefore, the operation rules of the standing committee established by the company standing committee on its own shall not be effective due to any defect in the method of establishing them. However, the above operation rules are merely the internal procedure guidelines for the operation of the standing committee, and they are legitimate so long as they were conducted in accordance with the collective agreement, employment rules, personnel regulations, and standing regulations of the company at the time

Article 36 of the Trade Union Act, Articles 27 and 94 of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff

Peace Transportation Corporation

Jeju District Court Decision 90Na301 delivered on June 21, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

1. The court below, based on its adopted evidence, has a reasonable measure to recognize the plaintiff's violation of the disciplinary measure of this case, and there is no error of misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the decision of the court below that the defendant company's disciplinary dismissal and resolution against the plaintiff was legitimate by the employee's standing committee's failure in three times, and that the employee's standing members were deemed to waive their voting rights pursuant to Article 22 (4) of the collective agreement of the defendant

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that Article 22 (2) of the above collective agreement provides that the division of the trade union and the company shall consult about the operating rules of the standing committee, and therefore the above operating rules shall be established by means of collective bargaining stipulated in the collective agreement, and cannot be established independently by the standing committee, so the operating rules of the standing committee of this case established by the standing committee of the defendant company on March 20, 198 shall not be effective as there is any defect in the method of its establishment. However, the above operating rules are merely the internal procedure guidelines for the operation of the standing committee, and they are lawful as long as the disciplinary action of this case was conducted in accordance with the collective agreement, rules of employment, personnel regulations, and standing regulations of the defendant company which was enforced at the time of the resolution of the disciplinary action of this case. The above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law

3. Although the theory of lawsuit contains a deviation from the judgment of the court below as to the plaintiff's assertion, even after examining the records, it cannot be found that the plaintiff alleged that the dismissal of the disciplinary action of this case was invalid as an unfair labor practice, and it merely constitutes an indirect fact, and thus, it does not constitute an unlawful act of omission or omission of reasoning on the ground that the court below did not separately determine the dismissal of the disciplinary action of this case. The argument is without merit.

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)