Where the Labor Relations Commission makes a decision on the public notice of employer under Article 14-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act by requesting the Labor Relations Commission to correct it, the initial date of the period of voluntary decision on the representative of bargaining (=the date

Article 17-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, along with the contents of Article 29-2(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Articles 14-6(1) and 14-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), provides that the Labor Relations Commission shall deliver the result of the disposition in writing to the parties concerned; the effect of the disposition shall accrue from the date when a written decision, etc. is served; and the more autonomous decision period for the representative bargaining trade union is determined upon the expiration of the period for the representative bargaining union or the employer is unable to consent to individual bargaining; and the initial date of the period shall be clear to the extent that there is no room for dispute between the parties concerned. In light of the above, if a trade union makes a decision on the employer’s public notice pursuant to Article 14-5 of the Enforcement Decree,

Article 29-2 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Articles 14-5, 14-6 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Article 17-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act

Geumho Labor Union (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Choi Su-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Geumho Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Ha-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

National Metal Trade Union (Law Firm Woo, Attorneys Lee Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na15267, 15274 decided October 11, 2013

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against an independent party intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 29-2(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) provides that where there are not less than two trade unions which establish or join a single business or workplace, a trade union shall set a representative bargaining trade union and request bargaining. Provided, That where an employer consents not to undergo the simplification of bargaining windows within a time limit for autonomous determination of a representative bargaining trade union (hereinafter “period for autonomous determination of bargaining delegation”), an individual bargaining may be conducted. Article 14-6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that the period for autonomous determination of bargaining delegation, i.e., the period for which an employer may consent to individual bargaining, shall be 14 days from the date of determination or determination pursuant to Article 14-5 of the Enforcement Decree.

In addition, Article 14-5 of the Enforcement Decree provides that a trade union that has an objection to the notice of the employer's request for bargaining may raise an objection to the employer, and where the employer does not make a public notice upon the request or makes a public notice differently from the details of the application, the employer may request the Labor Relations Commission to correct it, and the Labor Relations Commission in receipt of the request for correction shall make a decision thereon within 10 days from the date of receipt

Article 17-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, along with the contents of the above Act and the Enforcement Decree, provides that the Labor Relations Commission shall deliver the result of the disposition in writing to the parties concerned; the effect of the disposition takes effect from the date of receipt of the written decision, etc.; and since the period of autonomous decision on the representative bargaining takes effect more autonomously or the employer is unable to consent to individual bargaining upon the expiration of such period, the initial date of the period should be clear enough to the extent that there is no possibility of dispute between the parties concerned. In light of the above, if the Labor Relations Commission makes a decision on the employer’s public notice pursuant to Article 14-5 of the Enforcement Decree upon the request of the Labor Relations Commission for correction,

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Defendant: (a) announced the period of public notice pursuant to Article 14-5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on January 18, 2012 to the end of January 18, 2012 and January 22, 2012 as a trade union; (b) the Plaintiff and an independent party intervenor (hereinafter “participating”) as a request for bargaining; (c) the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant on the ground that the number of the intervenors publicly notified by the Defendant is included in the number of union members; (d) the Defendant did not make a public announcement upon the request; (e) the Plaintiff requested the ○○ Regional Labor Relations Commission on January 26, 2012 to correct it; (e) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request was disqualified for filing an application; (e) the Plaintiff and the Defendant served an authentic copy of such decision on February 7, 2012, and (e) notified the Plaintiff of the collective bargaining to the Defendant individually on February 21, 201, 201.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is justifiable to determine that the Defendant is obligated to implement individual bargaining procedures with the Plaintiff for the year 2012 collective bargaining by deeming that the consent of the Defendant on February 21, 2012 against the Plaintiff, which was made on February 21, 2012 from February 7, 2012, is valid, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the initial date of the period of autonomous bargaining delegation under Article 14-6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. 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 Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)