(a) The criteria for determining whether a trade union falls under “justifiable conduct for trade union operations” under Article 39 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act, and the case of the act of distributing printed materials by workers;

(b) The case holding that the above act of distributing printed materials cannot be deemed as a legitimate union activity in case where the contents that impair the reputation of the company executives or instigate employees to collectively take monthly leave in relation to matters that have no direct relationship with employment relations;

(c) The legal nature and validity of an employer's business trip order to workers;

(d) The case holding that if a worker refuses to issue an order for business trip on the ground of participation, etc. in training sessions of old-age women who became aware of prior agreement with the employer, such refusal of business trip order cannot be deemed as a trade union activity;

E. In a case where a company is not deemed to have dismissed on the grounds of legitimate partnership activities, whether the assertion that disciplinary dismissal measures against the company's employees would abuse the discretionary power of disciplinary action would affect whether the company's act constitutes an unfair labor practice (negative)

A. Determination as to whether a trade union’s act constitutes a justifiable act for a trade union’s work under Article 39 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act shall be made in accordance with social norms by taking into account the attitude of both labor and management in a specific case, the mode and degree of disadvantageous treatment to the employer. In a case where an employer’s act based on disadvantageous treatment is a distribution of printed materials, it shall be the basis for determining the legitimacy of the content of the printed materials, the timing of purchase and distribution, the object and method of distribution, and the influence of an

B. The case holding that the above distribution of printed materials produced and circulated by a worker constitutes a legitimate partnership activity if there is no ground for the content that impairs the reputation of the company's book, and the printed materials distributed by him instigates the employer to collectively take monthly leave in relation to matters not directly related to the employment relationship between the company that is the employer and the trade union or the worker, and as a result, it did not follow the prior notification procedure stipulated in the rules of employment, and as a result, a large number of workers left their workplace without permission, thereby hindering the normal operation of the company's business.

C. An order for business trips is a duty of good faith and duty to provide labor to an employee, unless there are special circumstances, such as where the discretion is recognized to the employer within a considerable extent that it falls under the employer’s right to order business, and where it is deemed that it violates an employment contract or is an abuse of rights

(d) The case holding that if a worker refuses to issue an order for business trip on the ground that he participated in the training session of old-age women who became aware of prior agreement with the employer, the act of refusal of such order cannot be deemed as a trade union activity.

E. The assertion that a company abused the discretion of disciplinary action does not affect whether it constitutes an unfair labor practice even on grounds of dispute over the validity of disciplinary action, unless the company has deemed that it was a ground for dismissal of workers for legitimate union activities or was actually dismissed due to legitimate union activities.

Article 39 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union Act

C. Supreme Court Decision 90Da9353 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2136), 91Da12366 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2592), 90Da20428 delivered on October 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 2816). Supreme Court Decision 89Nu679 delivered on September 14, 1990 (Gong190, 2105)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Defendant Intervenor Kim-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu11518 delivered on May 9, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the distribution of printed materials

Whether a worker's act constitutes a legitimate act for the work of a trade union under Article 39 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union Act shall be determined in accordance with social norms by taking into account the attitude of both labor and management in a specific case, the mode and degree of disadvantage to be treated by the employer. If an employer's act on the ground of disadvantageous treatment is a distribution of printed materials, it shall be the basis for determining the legitimacy of the content of the inducement, purchase, distribution, the time of distribution, the object and method, and the influence of the company or work.

The facts established by the court below are as follows: at the time of December 24, 1987, the plaintiff criticizes the intervenor's subordinate employees of the Gyeyang Factory Link, the team leader of the intervenor's Ansan Factory Link, who is the team leader of the plaintiff's office, to prepare printed materials containing the contents that infringe on his character and privacy, and clearly lack the grounds, and signed by the employees belonging to the office. The plaintiff recommended the plaintiff to attend a meeting by collectively taking monthly leave for the non-party 1 under detention of the chairperson of the Labor Relations Adjustment Division, the Vice Minister of Education and Publicity of the labor union, the non-party 1, who was detained by the non-party 1, to attend the trial, without the labor union's instruction, and it is just for the plaintiff to independently prepare printed materials to the effect that the non-party 1's rejection of education, etc. were without any justifiable reason for the plaintiff's distribution of printed materials to the intervenor's company and the plaintiff's non-party 16, who did not directly interfere with the plaintiff's work.

2. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 3 and 4-A. Unauthorized Demonstration, Interference with Business, and Refusal of Order of Business trip

In light of the records, the court below's findings and determination that the plaintiff interfered with the intervenor's business affairs are justified. Thus, the court below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, even if the plaintiff's act of obstructing the proceedings of the disciplinary committee in the course of demonstration and unauthorized admission to the disciplinary committee without permission within the workplace without permission, is considered as legitimate trade union activities.

An order to make a business trip is subject to the employer's duty of good faith and duty to provide labor, unless there are special circumstances such as violation of the employment contract or abuse of rights.

According to the facts established by the court below, the intervenor company issued an order to the plaintiff who was in the above plant with a voltage cable screening service between May and June of the same year in order to process that the plaintiff's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operation during the above factory from the end of May of the same year to the end of June of the same year, but the plaintiff refused the above order on the ground that the plaintiff's business operator's business operator's prior agreement with the intervenor company's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business.

3. As to the abuse of disciplinary power, Article 4-2 of the Grounds for Appeal

If an employer took a legitimate trade union activity of a worker or took a justifiable action for workers' trade union affairs as a result of a decision making reason for another reason, if the employer treats disadvantage such as dismissal or transfer for another reason, this is the same as the point of theory that it falls under unfair labor practices.

In this case, as seen earlier, the Intervenor Company is not deemed to have dismissed the Plaintiff’s legitimate union activity as a ground for dismissal, or to have been actually dismissed due to the Plaintiff’s legitimate union activity. As such, the Intervenor Company’s disciplinary dismissal against the Plaintiff cannot be an unfair labor practice. As such, the Intervenor’s assertion that it abused discretionary power cannot affect whether it constitutes an unfair labor practice even if it is a ground for dispute over the validity of disciplinary action (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu679, Sept. 14, 1990). Therefore, the Intervenor’s argument that it abused discretionary power is 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.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)