A. Whether it constitutes an unfair labor practice under subparagraphs 1, 4, and 5 of Article 39 of the Trade Union Act to issue an order to return to work for the purpose of making it difficult for the union members to engage in legitimate union activities, such as industrial action, etc. (affirmative)

B. Whether it constitutes an unfair labor practice as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 39 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act to receive wages from the full-time employee or the full-time employee of the union as a result of the active demand or strike by the union (negative)

A. The purpose of the unfair labor practice system is to guarantee the right to organize of workers and the right to organize, so disadvantage in union activities such as full-time officers or union members of labor union also constitutes one type of disadvantageous treatment as stipulated in Article 39 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union Act. If a full-time officer or union members order to return to work for the purpose of preventing legitimate union activities such as his or her industrial actions, etc. from engaging in union activities, then such order cannot be viewed as legitimate measures based on the employer's own right to personnel management, and it constitutes unfair labor practices as stipulated in subparagraphs 1 and 5 of Article 39 of the Trade Union Act, and also constitutes unfair labor practices as stipulated in subparagraph 4 of the same Article.

B. Considering that the payment of wages from the full-time officer or the employee union is formally, it falls under the main sentence of Article 39 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act, one of the unfair labor practices. However, it is reasonable to deem that the establishment of unfair labor practices under the above Article of the Trade Union Act does not fall under the form, but does not lead to the establishment of unfair labor practices unless there is a clear risk of losing the independence of the union due to the payment of the wages. In particular, if the payment of the wages was made through the active demand or the strike of the union, the risk of undermining the autonomy of the union due to the payment of the wages should be deemed to be rare, and thus, it shall not be deemed that

Article 39 of the Trade Union Act

Attorney Cho Yong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the Korean Automobile Trade Union

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Appellant Popo Passenger Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu7674 delivered on June 28, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party to the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant and the defendant appellant are also examined.

(1) The court below acknowledged the non-party 1 as the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1'.

(2) The purpose of the unfair labor practice system is to guarantee three labor rights, such as the right to organize of workers. As such, disadvantage in union activities, such as full-time officers or union union union members, etc., of union affairs, also constitutes one type of disadvantageous treatment under Article 39 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union Act. In a case where a full-time officer or union members, etc. were ordered to return to work for the purpose of making it difficult for union members to engage in legitimate union activities, such as their industrial actions, such order does not constitute legitimate measures based on the employer's own right to personnel management, and it is reasonable to deem that it constitutes unfair labor practices under Article 39 subparagraph 1 and 5 of the Trade Union Act, and it also constitutes unfair labor practices under Article 39 subparagraph 4 of the Trade Union Act.

In this regard, the court below's decision that the non-party 1's order to return to work against the plaintiff's union is just in holding that the non-party 1's order to return to work is an unfair labor act under subparagraphs 1, 4 and 5 of Article 39 of the Trade Union Act, which is an act of retaliation taken out after being suspected of legitimate union activities, such as the plaintiff's industrial action, in light of the position at the plaintiff's union, the contents of the dispute during the dispute period, the response attitude to the plaintiff's union and the Dong during the dispute period, the time and procedure for dispositions against the intervenor's union, the participant's size and management status, etc., and at the same time, is an act of control or intervention in the operation of the plaintiff's union. It is not justified in holding that it is an unfair labor act under subparagraphs 1, 4 and 5 of Article

(3) The main text of Article 39 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act stipulates that an employer shall consider the act of assisting the operating expenses of a trade union as one of the unfair labor practices and prohibits such act. Therefore, it is identical to the above Article of the Trade Union Act, but the legislative purpose of prohibiting the assistance of operating expenses is to ensure the independence of the union. However, it is reasonable to deem that the establishment of the unfair labor practice under the above Article of the Trade Union Act is not formally, but it does not lead to the establishment of the unfair labor practice unless there is a serious risk of losing the independence of the union due to the payment of the benefits, and in particular, if the payment of the benefits is caused by the active demand or the strike of the union, the risk of undermining the autonomy of the union due to the payment of the benefits does not constitute the unfair labor practice under the above Article of the Trade Union Act.

In this regard, the court below is just in holding that the intervenor company's payment of wages to the non-party 2 who is the full-time officer of the plaintiff union did not constitute an unfair labor practice under Article 39 subparagraph 4 of the Trade Union Act, since it obtained the result of actively demanding the plaintiff union to secure the full-time officer in charge of its own duties, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that it constitutes an unfair labor practice under Article 39 subparagraph 4 of the Trade Union Act, and that the intervenor company's dismissal against non-party 2 is obligated to pay the amount of wages during the period of dismissal, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles concerning unfair labor practices

(4) Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party to the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)