(a) Consent method where there is no trade union organized by a majority of workers in revising unfavorable contents of the working conditions set forth in the rules of employment to workers;

(b) The case holding that the validity of the consent is recognized if the employer knowingly consented to the amendment of the rules of employment to the effect that the employer would supplement the current retirement allowance system, even though the amendment of the rules of employment maintains the current retirement allowance system, which is a fractional system for the payment rate of retirement allowances, as it is

A. If the contents of the working conditions set forth in the rules of employment are modified disadvantageous to workers and there is no trade union consisting of a majority of workers, consent of the majority is required by the method of workers’ meeting, but the method of meeting is not limited to the method of holding meetings by which all workers of the same business or workplace gather their opinions in exchange for workers’ opinions under the condition that the intervention or interference between the employer and the employer is excluded by the organization or unit department of the business or workplace.

(b) The case holding that even if the part concerning the rate of payment of retirement allowances in the revised rules of employment is maintained as it is, it shall not be denied the validity of the consent if the employer knowingly agreed to the effect of the current retirement allowance system due to the problem of the validity of the current retirement allowance system, and the consent is not denied.

(b) Article 95 of the Labor Standards Act;

Plaintiff 1 and 11 others, Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and two others

Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and six others

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na53796 delivered on June 21, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the amendment of the former rules of employment on the premise that the consent of the workers who were subject to the previous rules of employment is required to unilaterally amend the existing rules of employment to a disadvantage to workers due to the amendment of the rules of employment, and that the consent of the union if there is a labor union consisting of a majority of workers, and that the amendment of the rules of employment is null and void unless there is such union, and that there is no consent of the majority of the workers, and that there is no change of the rules of employment. On the premise that the defendant revised the previous rules of employment to a new rules of employment including the single rules of employment on April 1, 1982 and April 1, 1987, and reported this to the Minister of Labor, it is difficult to view that the new rules of employment should be calculated according to the single rules of employment since the amendment to the above rules of employment to the effect that the single rules of employment should be revised to a minimum amount of less than 15 months after the amendment to the above rules of employment.

2. However, even if there is no trade union consisting of a majority of workers when the contents of the working conditions set forth in the rules of employment are modified disadvantageously to workers, the method of meeting is not only a method of holding meetings by all workers at one business or workplace at one time (in the case of a sunken business or workplace, there are many cases where it is virtually impossible to hold such meeting), but also a method of gathering opinions by exchanging opinions among workers under the condition that the employer's involvement or interference is excluded by the organization or unit department of one business or workplace, and combining them as a whole.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 5-1 through 39, when revising the rules of employment as of Apr. 1, 1987, as of Apr. 1, 1987, the court below prepared a written consent to the amendment of the above rules of employment by organization or unit department of the defendant company, and signed and sealed the written consent to the amendment of the above rules of employment with the contents that the employees agree to the amendment of the rules of employment, and all of the employees' opinions on the amendment are delegated to the defendant company's land labor union members to the non-party 1, non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 4, and non-party 5, each of whom the above workers' members are delegated by the above workers, and as a result, agreed to the amendment of the above rules of employment with the number of workers signed and sealed by the above workers in the above written consent exceeds a majority (the defendant asserts that the majority of the employees' opinions by organization or department, and the above workers' agreement with the employer's involvement or interference with the employer's freedom.

Meanwhile, in light of the above draft of the Rules of Employment (No. 5-38 of the evidence No. 5), various amendments are included in the above draft of the Rules of Employment, and with respect to the rate of retirement pay of the worker at the time of retirement, the current retirement allowance system of the fraction by multiplying the average wage for one month by the number of years of service at the time of retirement (which is based on the revision of the Rules of Employment as of January 1, 1972) is maintained, and there is no change in the current retirement allowance system on the premise that the retirement allowance system is a progressive system. Therefore, if the worker is aware that the current retirement allowance system of the fractional system is valid and it is deemed that it is maintained, and if the worker consents to the draft of the above Rules of Employment, it is difficult to see

However, according to the records, the current retirement allowance system (amended on January 1, 1972) in which some workers retired from the defendant company was invalid due to the absence of the consent of the lawful workers at the time of the revision, and the cases finalized by the Supreme Court after filing a lawsuit for a claim of retirement allowance under the short-term system and winning judgment were several cases. Thus, the defendant included the retirement allowance portion in the revised on April 1, 1987 in order to ensure the validity of the current retirement allowance system by obtaining the consent of the workers. However, if the workers agree with the above circumstances, i.e., the validity of the current retirement allowance system, with the knowledge that the workers would seek the consent to supplement it due to the problem of the validity of the current retirement allowance system, and therefore, the court below should have examined whether the workers knew of the above circumstances.

However, in light of the fact that the retirement allowance payment rate system is directly related to the interests of workers, and that some retired workers had already been involved in the effectiveness of the current retirement allowance system, and there were many cases of winning a lawsuit against the defendant company, as mentioned earlier, there is no room to deem that the defendant company was aware of the fact that some retired workers would seek the consent of the employees due to the problem of the validity of the current retirement allowance system and the purport of supplementing it.

In addition, as seen above, each worker delegates the opinion of the workers on the amendment of the above rules of employment to five members of the Labor-Management Council for Labor-Management Council for Labor-Management of Workers. Thus, even if the same matters as the consent of the amendment of the rules of employment are not included in the worker members' work under the provisions of the labor-management council, the worker's expression of intent is authorized as proxy for specific matters delegated as above. If the contents of delegation of authority delegates the above worker members to decide whether to agree after examining the contents of the amendment of the rules of employment, it would be difficult for the above worker members to lose the validity of the consent unless they knew of the intent of the amendment of

Although the court below should have deliberated more on the above points and should have judged the validity of the consent of the next workers, the court below's decision as above without the name is an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment through insufficient deliberation, and the argument on this point is justified.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)