Whether the amendment of wage regulations that form part of the rules of employment requires the consent of a group of workers in favor of and against some of the workers (affirmative)

It should be uniformly determined whether the revision of the rules of employment, which forms a part of the rules of employment, is favorable to, and disadvantageous to, certain workers, to determine whether such revision requires the consent of a group of workers. In addition, in such a case, it is difficult to objectively evaluate whether the rules of employment is disadvantageous to workers as a whole, and if there is a conflict of interest between workers due to the same revision, it is reasonable to treat such amendment as disadvantageous to workers, and make it decided according to the overall intent of the workers.

Article 95 of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee

Korea Cadastral Corporation Law Firm, Attorneys Lee Hun-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na52646 delivered on December 2, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the content of the working conditions cannot be readily concluded to have been unilaterally modified, on the ground that it did not require the consent of the employee group, on the following grounds: (a) although it was disadvantageous to those who wish to maintain a long-term service due to the lower adjustment of the rate of payment of retirement allowances in accordance with the wage regulations amended on April 1, 1981; (b) the amount of monthly salary, which serves as a basis for the calculation of retirement allowances, was considerably increased; and (c) the calculation method of retirement allowances for the period of service from July 1, 1967 to December 31, 1968, which led to the improvement of the calculation method

However, it is reasonable to judge whether the revision of the rules of employment, which forms a part of the rules of employment, requires the consent of a group of workers in favor of and against some workers, should be uniformly determined for the entire workers, and in such a case, it is difficult to objectively evaluate whether the rules of employment are disadvantageous to workers as a whole, and if there is a conflict of interest between workers due to the same revision, it is reasonable to treat the amendment as disadvantageous to workers and make it decided according to the overall intent of the workers. Therefore, the amendment of the rules of employment in this case requires the consent of the group of workers as disadvantageous amendments without comparing the size of the group of workers who are disadvantageously unfavorable according to the continuous service period. Accordingly, the amendment of the rules of employment in this case without following such procedure is null and void. The court below's decision that the consent of the group of workers is not necessary because the amendment of the rules of employment in this case did not unilaterally disadvantage workers, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disadvantage of the rules of employment.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the court below's decision, the court below held that since the amendment of the salary provision of this case protects the right of vested interests by applying the prior provision for the period in which the amendment had already been in service, the amendment's motive is in accordance with the government's policy in order to make the management rationalization of government-invested institutions, and the amendment's motive is for the public interest, more higher retirement allowances than the general public are maintained after the amendment, and there was no special objection for about 10 years from employees or trade unions, the disadvantage suffered by workers due to the amendment provision is not to the extent that its contents and degree cannot be reduced, and therefore, the above amendment provision cannot be deemed null and void in light of social norms that can replace the employees' consent.

However, even if the amendment of regulations on remuneration was made in accordance with the government's adjustment policies on the grounds that the level of wages for the executives and employees of government-affiliated invested institutions at the time of the amendment is too high, financial pressure on the management and profit-making activities of government-invested institutions and equity with the general public, it cannot be viewed that it is reasonable in terms of social norms that does not require the consent of the workers' group (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da49324 delivered on January 26, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 92Da32357 delivered on November 27, 1992, respectively). Even if considering the following different circumstances, it is difficult to view that the amendment of the provision on salary of this case is reasonable in terms of social norms that would lead to the failure of the workers' group consent to the amendment of the provision on salary of this case, and therefore, it is also justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)