(a) Effect of dismissal in violation of the procedure for dismissal;

(b) The case holding that the term "agreement" under the collective agreement that the matter of dismissal of union members shall be agreed with the trade union is the purport of giving the trade union an opportunity to present necessary opinions in order to ensure fairness in personnel affairs or disciplinary action in light of the overall structure, contents, etc. of the collective agreement and allowing the union to refer to the opinion

A. Whether dismissal under the collective agreement constitutes a violation of the procedure of dismissal cannot be ruled uniformly and shall be decided in accordance with the purport of the provision. The judicial effect of the dismissal in question is not always denied since the dismissal was punished as a violation of the procedure of dismissal under the provisions of the collective agreement, and even if dismissal was done in violation of the pre-announcement of dismissal duty, the judicial effect of the dismissal in question does not affect the validity of the dismissal, and the payment of dismissal allowances does not affect the validity of the dismissal, as long as the dismissal has a justifiable reason.

B. In light of the overall structure, contents, etc. of a collective agreement, the case affirming the decision of the court below that the term "agreement" under the collective agreement that the issue of dismissal of union members is to be agreed with the trade union is not stipulated in the purport of comprehensively restricting the company's personnel rights or disciplinary rights by complying with the intentions of the trade union, but it is reasonable to interpret the purport of giving the trade union an opportunity to present necessary opinions and allowing the union to refer to the opinion of the trade union presented in order to prevent the trade union from impeding its normal activities by arbitrary personnel rights or disciplinary actions against union members.

(a)Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act; (a) Articles 27-2, 110 of the Labor Standards Act; and Article 46-3 of the Trade Union Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da42774 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2244) 92Da34926 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2576) 93Nu4199 delivered on September 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 297) B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da13400 delivered on September 25, 1992 (Gong192, 2963) 92Da18542 delivered on September 25, 1992 (Gong192, 293) 92Da50263 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong293Ha, 257)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee and two others

Busan Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 92Na2418 delivered on May 13, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is acceptable. The plaintiff 1 urged workers who are members of the defendant company's trade union to leave the workplace without permission during working hours, and caused abusive assault and assault to the person in charge of the decentralization factory who intends to investigate the situation, and the plaintiff 2 occupied the defendant 1's disciplinary dismissal at the port district where he was absent from office without permission, and made and distributed printed materials containing false facts such as the plaintiff 1's reinstatement, the defendant company's delayed payment of wages, and it did not constitute a violation of the collective agreement with 20 members, and it did not interfere with the work by creating a new disciplinary dismissal against the defendant company, and the court below's decision that the defendant company's dismissal of the defendant company did not interfere with the duty of disciplinary dismissal, and the defendant company's dismissal of the defendant company did not interfere with the duty of disciplinary dismissal. The court below's decision that the defendant company's dismissal of the defendant company did not interfere with the order of disciplinary dismissal.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

With respect to the second and third points

1. Whether a violation of the procedure of dismissal as provided in the collective agreement is invalid or not shall not be ruled uniformly and shall be decided in accordance with the purport of the provision, and the validity of the dismissal in question is not always denied because the dismissal in question was punished as a violation of the procedure of dismissal under the provisions of the collective agreement, and it does not necessarily mean that the judicial effect of the dismissal in question is not always denied. Even if the dismissal in violation of the pre-announcement of dismissal obligation is done, it does not affect the judicial effect of the dismissal in question as long as the dismissal has a justifiable reason (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu4199 delivered on September 24, 1993), and whether the dismissal allowance is paid does not affect the validity of the dismissal (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da1400 delivered on

In addition, if a trade union provides that an employer shall give an opportunity to present his/her opinion in order to ensure decentness in conducting personnel affairs, the validity of personnel affairs shall not be affected even if the employer did not go through the procedure. However, if an employer requires the consent or consent of the trade union in conducting personnel affairs or provides that an employer shall conduct personnel affairs in consideration of the agreement with the trade union upon consultation with the trade union, a personnel affairs disposition without going through the procedure shall be deemed null and void in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da50263, Jul. 13, 1993; 92Da34926, Aug. 24, 199).

2. Article 34 (1) of the collective agreement (Evidence 11) provides that "the labor union recognizes that the company has personnel rights, such as recruitment, dismissal, transfer, and standing punishment," and Article 4 (2) provides that "the personnel affairs of the union members and the dismissal of union members shall be widened so that the union can be agreed." Article 40 provides that if the company intends to adjust the number of union members due to a reduction of company or an inevitable reason, it shall be notified 60 days before the union and that it shall agree in advance with the labor union when it suspends its business or closes its business due to its difficulty in its operation due to a natural disaster or other unavoidable reason, the term "agreement" is used to the effect that the plaintiffs' opinion on disciplinary dismissal is unreasonable because the defendant company did not request that the above disciplinary measure be taken harshly against the plaintiff 1 and that the labor union's opinion on the disciplinary measure should be interpreted as null and void in light of the overall system of collective agreement and the right to disciplinary action against the defendant company's union members."

3. However, it is appropriate that the exemption from the duty of pre-determination of dismissal under the Labor Standards Act is a case where the continuation of business is impossible due to natural disasters, accidents, or other unavoidable circumstances, and the worker intentionally interferes with the business or causes property damage, and the reason attributable to the worker should be approved by the Minister of Labor (Article 27-2 of the Labor Standards Act). The court below's decision that the dismissal of the plaintiffs is not applicable in the case of disciplinary action due to the worker's fault under Article 27-2 of the Labor Standards Act, but it does not affect the result of this case in this case where

There is no reason for this issue.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)