1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The basic facts are that the defendant employs 30 full-time workers and operates urban bus transportation business, and the plaintiffs are the workers employed as the defendant's bus article.

In March 31, 2010, the expiration date of the collective agreement concluded with the defendant, which was around 208, a democratic labor union in Jeju-do with the plaintiffs organized the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the "instant trade union") requested collective bargaining to renew the multilateral collective agreement. collective bargaining was conducted on March 11, 2010 and on March 19, 201.

However, the defendant has known that it is not possible to negotiate without resolution, such as submission of an accurate list of union members and confirmation of delegation of collective bargaining.

On April 21, 2010, the instant trade union filed an application for mediation of a labor dispute with the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Regional Labor Relations Commission, but the said committee rendered a decision to suspend mediation on May 6, 2010 on the ground that “the Defendant’s submission of the list of union members and the implementation of the agreement on the payment of annual monthly allowances, which was made before the conclusion of the collective agreement in 2008, cannot conduct collective bargaining prior to the cancellation of the required conditions while requesting the instant trade union to the instant trade union, and the said trade union made a decision to suspend mediation on the ground that the said requirements are not directly related to the collective agreement, and it is impossible to present a proposal because they are unable to present their opinions.

On April 26, 2010, the instant trade union filed a complaint with the Gwangju Regional Labor Office on unfair labor practices due to the refusal of collective bargaining by the Defendant, and the Gwangju Regional Labor Office sent the Defendant to the prosecution under suspicion of violation of Article 81 subparag. 3 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

As the instant trade union passed an industrial action by going through a motion vote on June 12, 2010, the Defendant entered E and F, a driving employee, for substitute work of the union members on June 14, 2010. Accordingly, the instant trade union from around 07:00 on June 15, 2010.