(a) Whether compelling a worker to submit his/her trading opinion constitutes unfair labor practices committed by the employer (affirmative);

(b) The meaning of the employer under Article 5 of the Trade Union Act;

In the event that a worker is dismissed by submitting a voluntary resignation by submitting the list, it cannot be deemed an unfair labor practice, but the employer's unfair move, contribution, or other strong influence similar thereto has been affected, and if such intent of the employer was expressed or carried out for the purpose of submitting the list, it shall not be deemed an unfair labor practice, and the term "person who acts for the business owner" in Article 5 of the Trade Union Act means a person who is indirectly and indirectly given a certain responsibility or authority by the business owner through his superior, regardless of his class or status as to the matters concerning the workers of the business.

Articles 5 and 39 of the Trade Union Act

Plaintiff

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

East Water Industry Corporation

As of July 24, 1987, the decision of retrial rendered by the Defendant No. 3260-1060 of the mid-1987, as to the case of petition for review of unfair labor practices between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. No. 1, No. 4-1, No. 2, and No. 5-1, No. 6-1, No. 8-2, and No. 1-5-2, No. 6-1, No. 8-2, and No. 8-2, and No. 2-1 and No. 8-2, and the plaintiff's testimony after the witness's testimony were rejected. The plaintiff was allowed to dismiss the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's judgment dismissing the decision of the Seocho District Labor Relations Commission which dismissed the request for remedy is unlawful, since the participant company, which caused the plaintiff to be unable to speak on the methods of election of the president of the trade union at the conference of the representatives of the trade union and distribute printed materials to the company, forced the plaintiff to submit resignation on the ground of the fact that the participant company is a recommendation of the plaintiff's company entry into the company.

As to this, the Defendant and the Intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff’s submission of the Plaintiff’s above letter of apology was submitted on their own will, and that the Plaintiff’s submission of the letter of apology and the Defendant’s rejection of the letter of apology by the Intervenor could not be an unfair labor practice, and that the Defendant’s decision on review of this case was lawful.

3. On the other hand, Article 39 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act provides that “the act of dismissal or disadvantage of a worker on the ground that the worker has joined or attempted to join a trade union, or has attempted to organize a trade union, or has performed any other lawful act for the operation of a trade union, shall be listed as an unfair labor practice, and that the employer shall not perform such unfair labor practice;

However, if a worker is dismissed by submitting a voluntary resignation, it cannot be deemed an unfair labor practice. However, it cannot be deemed as an unfair labor practice, if the employer’s improper move or meritorious work, or any other strong impact on it was committed, and if such intent of the employer was expressed or used for the purpose of submitting a letter of intent, it cannot be deemed an unfair labor practice.

Article 5 of the Trade Union Act provides that the term "employer" means a person who acts on behalf of a business owner, a person in charge of the management of a business, or a person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters concerning workers of a business". The term "person who acts on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters concerning workers of a business" refers to a person who is directly or indirectly authorized by a business owner with respect to matters concerning workers of a business, regardless of their class or class.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff was a worker who was employed in the production division and the marketing division of the participating company, and the non-party standing is the director representative of the production division of the above company to which the plaintiff belongs and is in the position to supervise the plaintiff's labor-related matters. Thus, the above standing ceremony also constitutes "a person who acts for the business" in relation to the plaintiff's labor at least in relation to the plaintiff's business.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act of having the Plaintiff submit a resignation statement to the Plaintiff at the time of voluntary resignation of the Intervenor Company by means of voluntary resignation and exaggeration of the Plaintiff’s board of representatives, which does not constitute an unfair labor practice under Article 39 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act (i.e., Gap evidence No. 1 through No. 3, No. 4-1, No. 2, and No. 5-1, No. 2, No. 5-2, and No. 3), the Plaintiff received 163,500 won wages from the Intervenor Company in addition to the retirement allowance of the Intervenor Company on February 19, 1987, because of the Plaintiff’s act of voluntary resignation and distribution of printed materials stating the details of the Plaintiff’s statement at the time of the Intervenor Company’s voluntary resignation, and the Plaintiff’s act of having the Intervenor submit a resignation statement to the Intervenor at the time of the Intervenor Company’s voluntary resignation and the motive for the Plaintiff to submit a resignation statement to the Intervenor’s employees before February 24, 1987.

4. If so, the defendant's decision of July 24, 1987, which dismissed the plaintiff's request for a retrial against the dismissal decision of the Gyeongnam Local Labor Commission Commission which rejected the plaintiff's request by deeming that the plaintiff's submission of the plaintiff's letter of apology and the defendant joining the defendant's defendant's request for a correction of unfair labor practice does not constitute unfair labor practice, is illegal. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for a revocation is justified and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant

Judges Kim Sung-il (Presiding Judge)