If a business entity is closed, it is appropriate to apply for remedy against unfair labor practices by workers (negative)

The decision of the court below that held that the hospital managers closed the above hospital, dismissed all workers including the plaintiff, and applied for remedy for unfair labor practices of the plaintiff as long as the plaintiff is lost due to the closure of the business due to the closure of the business, unless it is a disguised closure of business, is justified in the decision of the court below that the plaintiff's application for remedy has no practical benefit.

Article 40 of the Trade Union Act

Seodaemun-gu

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Attorney Cho Young-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu6704 delivered on August 17, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff has worked as clinical pathology at a new hospital operated by the defendant assistant participant based on non-strifeless facts and macrofecing evidence, and that the above hospital workers form a new hospital labor union of the National Federation of Union of Korea on October 20, 1987 and request the plaintiff to conduct collective bargaining by selecting the plaintiff as union president, the defendant joining the defendant should have five doctors who had employed the above hospital submit a letter of resignation on December 30, 1987, by pointing out the labor union and let all workers including the plaintiff submit a letter of resignation to close the above hospital. The above hospital was closed on December 30, 1987 and confirmed that the closure of the business was a disguised closure of the business, and there is no evidence to find that the above business is a disguised closure of the business, and therefore, the above measure of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to unjust labor practices or remedy benefits.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)