In a case where Defendant B, a labor director of Defendant A limited liability company, was prosecuted for violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act on September 18, 2012 on the ground that he/she refused access by a negotiating member Byung who was entrusted with collective bargaining by the trade union’s office to visit the trade union office, but did not appear on the date of negotiation, the case affirming the lower court’s judgment that Defendant C’s act of refusing access to the trade union’s management of facilities and labor as long as the demand for collective bargaining on September 18, 2012, which was designated on September 17, 2012 as the collective bargaining date, is not null and void, regardless of whether the demand for collective bargaining was made on September 18, 2012, and whether the demand for collective bargaining can be made on September 18, 2012, regardless of whether there was sufficient reason to visit the trade union office, and therefore, entry should be allowed within the scope of legitimate trade union activities for the purpose of normal trade union activities, or that there was no substantial interference in the management and labor management of Defendant C.

Article 81 Subparag. 4 (see current Article 81(1)4), Articles 90 and 94 of the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Amended by Act No. 17432, Jun. 9, 2020);

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Law Firm Bernero, Attorney Masung-mun

Daejeon District Court Decision 2015No302 Decided September 17, 2015

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendants 3 and 4 limited liability companies

After comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted, the lower court found each of the facts in its judgment, and found Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 limited liability companies (hereinafter “Defendant 4 companies”) guilty of violating the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act on September 18, 2012, among the facts charged against Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 limited liability companies on the following grounds.

Even if a request for collective bargaining in the collective agreement of this case requires at least ten days prior to September 18, 2012, the request for collective bargaining cannot be deemed null and void on September 17, 2012, which was designated as the collective bargaining date, and regardless of whether the collective bargaining could be conducted on September 18, 2012, the Nonindicted Party, the negotiating member, regardless of whether the request for collective bargaining could be conducted on September 18, 2012, has sufficient grounds to visit the office of the Defendant 4 company trade union on September 18, 2012 for the preparation or defense related to the commencement of collective bargaining and the follow-up measures, so the entry of Defendant 3 and the Nonindicted Party 4 company is allowed within the scope of legitimate trade union activities. Unless it is acknowledged that there are circumstances such as the intention of the Nonindicted Party to enter the office of the Defendant 4 company for purposes other than union operation or facility management by the Nonindicted Party, or that the entry of the Nonindicted Party by Defendant 4 constitutes an unfair trade union intervention in the organization or labor operation.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of a collective agreement and unfair labor practices due to the control and entry of trade union activities.

2. As to the appeal by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not submit a statement of the grounds for appeal within the submission period, and did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min You-sook (Presiding Justice)