(a) The case that deemed that the dismissal of disciplinary action against the president of the trade union is justifiable; (b) Whether the defect in the disciplinary procedure is cured where the person subject to disciplinary action voluntarily appeared in the disciplinary committee and vindicates himself/herself without being notified of the fact of referral to disciplinary action prior to the prescribed date in the collective agreement;

A. In a case where the president of a trade union provided a representative training outside the company for 2-day one week without obtaining approval from the company during working hours, and the representative director of a company was abused and injured by violence at the president’s office, such act constitutes grounds for dismissal under collective agreement, and this constitutes grounds for dismissal under which an employment relationship between the president of a trade union and the company cannot be continued, and the company dismissed the president of a trade union on such grounds

The case holding that it is justified.

B. In the collective agreement, if a member is subject to disciplinary action, it shall be required to notify the person subject to disciplinary action not later than the prescribed date from the date of the disciplinary committee, but it shall be wrong that the employer later notifies the person subject to disciplinary action that the person subject to disciplinary action has been referred to the disciplinary action without any time limit provided for in the collective agreement. However, if the person subject to disciplinary action voluntarily appeared in the disciplinary committee and made sufficient vindication without raising any objection to

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 11220 (Gong1993Sang, 95) and 92Da27089 (Gong193Ha, 1674) decided May 11, 1993, 1993; 194Nu11767 decided March 3, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1623)

Plaintiff

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Defendant’s Intervenor (Attorney Choi Young-sik, Counsel for the defendant’s intervenor)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu7739 delivered on April 7, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below found, based on its evidence, that the plaintiff, the president of the labor union partnership of the defendant assistant intervenor, provided a representative education outside the company for one-half-day period without obtaining approval from the defendant assistant intervenor during working hours, and the non-party, the representative director of the defendant assistant intervenor, who was the representative director of the defendant assistant intervenor, committed violence at the president's office, and inflicted injury on the plaintiff. The plaintiff's act constitutes grounds for dismissal under the collective agreement, and it is reasonable that the plaintiff's assistant intervenor dismissed the plaintiff on the ground that this act constitutes grounds for dismissal under the employment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant assistant intervenor, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the dismissal as an unfair labor practice in addition to the evidence rejected. The court below's determination of this fact is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment, legitimacy of dismissal, or unfair labor practice as pointed out in the ground for

However, the court below's finding that the plaintiff got spawn and spathal spawn, etc. against the non-party by spawning the spawn of the non-party's spawn and spawn, etc., as alleged in the grounds of appeal, is erroneous. However, according to the records, the plaintiff suffered from the non-party's spawn and the non-party's spawn spawn and spawn around the shock. Thus, the court below's error does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In a collective agreement, if a member of the disciplinary committee is subject to disciplinary action, it would be wrong for the employer to notify the person subject to disciplinary action that the person subject to disciplinary action was later referred to the disciplinary action without setting a time limit as provided for in the collective agreement, but if the person subject to disciplinary action voluntarily appeared in the disciplinary committee and made sufficient vindication without raising any objection to the notification procedure, such procedural defect shall be cured (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da11220, Nov. 13, 1992; 92Da27089, May 11, 1993; 94Nu1767, Mar. 3, 1995, etc.).

In this regard, the court below is just in holding that the defect in the disciplinary procedure was cured because the defendant assistant intervenor did not notify the plaintiff of the referral to disciplinary action three days prior to the date of holding the disciplinary action as stipulated in Article 23 subparagraph 1 of the collective agreement while the defendant assistant intervenor decided to hold the disciplinary committee of the plaintiff on November 1, 1993, and notified the plaintiff on October 30 of the same year, which was two days prior to the date of holding the disciplinary action, and the plaintiff was present at the disciplinary committee and was provided with sufficient opportunity to make statements without raising any objection, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disciplinary procedure. The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be 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)