In order to prevent blank situation following the expiration of the term of validity of a collective agreement, an employer and a trade union shall automatically extend the validity of the previous collective agreement for a certain period and Article 35(3) of the Trade Union Act.

In principle, a collective agreement shall expire at the expiration of its term of validity: Provided, That if a new collective agreement has not been concluded even though collective bargaining was continued to enter into a new collective agreement before and after the expiration of the term of validity, the previous collective agreement shall remain effective for three months from the expiration date of the term of validity, in accordance with Article 35(3) of the Trade Union Act, but an employer and a trade union may agree to automatically extend the validity of the previous collective agreement for a certain period in order to prevent the gap in the collective agreement from occurring in such a case. Such agreement does not violate the purport of Article 35(3) of the Trade Union Act, and if there is an agreement on automatic extension of the term of validity of the said collective agreement, the previous collective agreement shall not be deemed valid for three months from the expiration date of the term of validity

Article 35 of the Trade Union Act

Hanam General Development Corporation (Attorney Lee Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu1983 delivered on July 18, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) dismissed participants from office on July 27, 1990 to July 27 of the same year through a resolution of the disciplinary committee consisting of executive staff members designated by the representative director of the Plaintiff company, and Article 25(1) through (3) of the collective agreement concluded with the Plaintiff on January 26, 199, which was concluded with the labor union, shall undergo a resolution by the disciplinary committee, but the disciplinary committee shall be composed of three union members including the chairperson of the union, and Article 1 and Article 2 of the Addenda provide that the period of validity of the collective agreement shall be one year from the date of conclusion of the collective agreement, but the collective agreement shall continue to be effective when negotiations for the renewal of the collective agreement were made even after the expiration of the period of validity, and that the collective agreement shall continue to exist within the same period of validity as the date of dismissal of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor pursuant to Article 25(1)2 of the said collective agreement.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law in misconception of facts or incomplete deliberation as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the collective agreement is in principle terminated at the expiration of the term of validity: Provided, That if a new collective agreement is not concluded even though collective bargaining has been continued to enter into a new collective agreement before and after the expiration of the term of validity, the previous collective agreement is valid for three months from the expiration date of the term of validity in accordance with Article 35(3) of the Trade Union Act, but an employer and a trade union may agree to automatically extend the term of the previous collective agreement for a certain period to prevent the gap in the collective agreement from occurring in such a case. Such agreement does not violate the purport of Article 35(3) of the Trade Union Act, and if an agreement on automatic extension of the term of validity of the said collective agreement is not contrary to the purport of Article 35(3) of the same Act, the previous collective agreement shall not

Therefore, in this case, it is obvious that the dismissal of the plaintiff from the position of the intervenor does not reach two years including the validity term of the collective agreement as stipulated in Article 35 of the Trade Union Act, counting from the date of the conclusion of the collective agreement, and it is reasonable for the court below to determine that the above dismissal of the plaintiff's intervenor is unfair on the premise that the above dismissal of the plaintiff's intervenor without going through the procedure as stipulated in the collective agreement, even at the time when the plaintiff dismissed the intervenor, is in existence. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the collective agreement as stipulated in the Trade Union Act. All arguments are without merit

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)