Whether a trade union whose status as a negotiating party is maintained pursuant to Article 4 of the Addenda of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (negative) is deprived of the status of a negotiating party where it fails to enter into a collective agreement for one year from July 1, 201 (negative)

The meaning of “the bargaining trade union pursuant to this Act” under Article 4 of the Addenda of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 930, Jan. 1, 2010) means that the status and authority of the bargaining trade union under collective bargaining as at the time of the enforcement date of this Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Jul. 1, 201) shall not be recognized as the status and authority of the bargaining trade union as a representative bargaining trade union as prescribed by this Rule as at the time of the enforcement date of this Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Jul. 1, 2011). Thus, even in cases where a trade union under collective bargaining as at the time of July 1, 2011 exists, it is reasonable to interpret that the other trade union is able to continue existing collective bargaining without undergoing procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows. In addition, Article 14-10 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act does not require that the trade union be granted a single bargaining counter for 1 year from the date of the bargaining.

Articles 29 and 29-2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Articles 1 and 4 of the Addenda ( January 1, 2010); Article 14-10(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

Supreme Court Order 2012Ma858 Decided November 12, 2012 (Gong2013Sang, 155)

Jeon National Housing Trade Union (Law Firm Inn, Attorneys Jeon Du-pop et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The same transportation corporation

Seoul High Court Order 2012Ra1082 dated February 26, 2013

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. The meaning of “the representative bargaining trade union under this Act” under Article 4 of the Addenda of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 930, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “Act”) shall be interpreted to mean that a trade union under collective bargaining as at the time of the enforcement date of this Act (amended by this Act, July 1, 201; hereinafter “the status and authority of a representative bargaining trade union as at the time of the enforcement date of this Act shall not be recognized as the status and authority of a representative bargaining trade union, but it shall be interpreted to mean that it may continue existing collective bargaining without undergoing procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows, by maintaining the status of a negotiating party after July 1, 2011 (see Supreme Court Order 2012Ma858, Nov. 12, 2012). Thus, even if a trade union under collective bargaining as at the time of July 1, 2011, another trade union is not excluded from the right to negotiate, and such trade union may request an employer separately through the simplification procedure.

Meanwhile, Article 14-10(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "where a representative bargaining trade union decided pursuant to Article 29-2 of the Act fails to conclude a collective agreement for one year from the date of its decision, any trade union may request an employer to negotiate." This is intended to provide an opportunity to participate in negotiations to another trade union in which the right of bargaining has been excluded as a result of the procedures for the simplification of a new representative bargaining trade union by allowing a trade union which has decided to be a representative bargaining trade union through the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows to ensure that the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows to determine a new representative bargaining trade union is not concluded for

Therefore, the case where the status of a negotiating party is maintained pursuant to Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act is not subject to Article 14-10(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act. Thus, a trade union whose status of a negotiating party is maintained is not deprived of the status of a negotiating party by deeming that a collective agreement was not concluded for one year from July 1, 201.

2. While the lower court deemed that a creditor, who had conducted collective bargaining with an obligor from around December 2010, maintained the status of a negotiating party pursuant to Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act, the lower court, on the premise that Article 14-10(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act is equally applied regardless of whether a negotiating party is a representative bargaining trade union under Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act, or not, under Article 29-2 of the Act, and on the premise that the one-year negotiation period has already expired from July 1, 2011, it is difficult to deem that there is a need to preserve the debtor in a provisional disposition by accepting the creditor’s application. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on interpretation and application of Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act and Article 14-10(3) of the Enforcement Decree

3. Therefore, the order 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 on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)