[1] The meaning of "labor disputes" under the Labor Dispute Mediation Act and the scope of the subject of arbitration award ex officio

[2] Specific cases as to whether a person falls under the subject of an ex officio arbitration award

[3] Where an arbitration award becomes invalidated, whether a party to labor relations has legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the arbitration award (negative)

[1] Arbitration procedures are, in principle, conducted with respect to matters subject to a labor dispute, and Article 2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act provides that "the state of dispute arising from disagreements between the parties to labor relations with respect to working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, and other treatment," and working conditions refer to the conditions determined with respect to the treatment of workers in the labor contract relationship between the employer and the worker, and in detail include not only the wages, working hours, welfare, and dismissal stipulated in the Labor Standards Act, but also the matters stipulated in subparagraphs 1 through 11 of Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act and subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Therefore, the state of dispute arising from disagreements between the parties to labor relations with respect to matters other than these working conditions is not a dispute concerning working conditions, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as a labor dispute under the current law, and such matters cannot be subject to arbitration award unless there are special circumstances.

[2] Since the dismissal criteria are determined on the grounds for termination of the labor contract relations, they fall under the "matters concerning retirement" under Article 94 subparagraph 4 of the Labor Standards Act, and any disagreement in such grounds is ultimately the subject of an arbitration award. Therefore, the matters related to the standing committee, such as the establishment and organization of the standing committee, are included in the "matters concerning the commendation and sanctions" under Article 94 subparagraph 10 of the Labor Standards Act to the extent necessary to promote rational and fair personnel and sanctions in the workplace, and are subject to an arbitration award on the same grounds. However, the labor union members' working hours are not allowed in principle since they are in conflict with the duty to provide workers, and it is not allowed to be included in the labor contract relations between the employer and the workers, and even if the provisions concerning the labor relations are stipulated in the previous collective agreement or collective agreement between the parties to the labor relations, they cannot be viewed as working conditions, and thus, it cannot be said that there are no special circumstances between the employer and the parties to the labor relations, unless there are any disagreement in the labor agreement between them.

[3] Where the term of validity of an arbitration award has been established by the arbitration award itself, the parties to labor relations shall not have any legal interest to seek the cancellation of such arbitration award, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon by remaining external form of the arbitration award after the lapse of that term, as long as the arbitration award has become invalidated.

[1] Articles 2, 37, and 38(2) of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, Article 94 subparag. 1 and 11 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 7 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Articles 2, 37, and 38(2) of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, Article 94 subparag. 4 and 10 of the Labor Standards Act / [3] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 39(1) of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Nu11883 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 728) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10503 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1890), Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu14148 delivered on October 17, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3544)

Han field taxi Co., Ltd.

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Shin Young-si Trade Union and 43 others (Supplementary intervenors et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu30145 delivered on June 9, 1994

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

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that there are differences between the plaintiffs and intervenors in contents of Article 8 of the collective agreement with respect to union assistance activities during working hours and that the plaintiffs' collective agreement is not stipulated in the collective agreement with respect to union assistance, but it is stipulated in Articles 9 and 10 of the collective agreement with the intervenors, and that such matters are included in the collective agreement with regard to union assistance activities during working hours and it is subject to arbitration. Furthermore, the defendant limited the hours and number of union assistance activities during working hours to a labor-management agreement, but it is recognized that the union is under the labor-management agreement with respect to union assistance but it is not recognized as union assistance until the above agreement, so it cannot be deemed as a monthly right since the above agreement does not constitute an unlawful or unfair consultation with the employer on the grounds that it does not constitute an unlawful or unfair consultation with the labor-management union's removal of the plaintiffs' union members from office because the employer's right to manage the union members under the collective agreement with the labor-management union is not a legitimate ground for dismissal or dismissal of the labor-management agreement.

2. Arbitration procedures are, in principle, conducted with respect to matters subject to a labor dispute, and Article 2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act provides that "the state of dispute arising from disagreements between the parties to labor relations concerning working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, and other treatment," and working conditions refer to the conditions that determine the treatment of workers in the labor contract relationship between the employer and the worker (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da19210, Jun. 23, 1992; 91Da19210, Jun. 23, 1992). Specifically, they include not only the wages, working hours, welfare, and damage stipulated in the Labor Standards Act, but also the matters stipulated in subparagraphs 1 through 11 and 3 of Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 7 subparagraph 1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act. Therefore, the state of dispute arising from disagreements between the parties to labor relations with respect to matters other than such working conditions cannot be deemed as labor dispute under the current law, and such matters cannot be deemed as subject to arbitration award.

On the other hand, this case's subject matter of arbitration award in this case's subject matter falls under "matters concerning retirement" as provided in Article 94 subparagraph 4 of the Labor Standards Act, and any disagreement in its assertion as to this case's subject matter of arbitration award in this case's subject matter falls under "matters concerning retirement" as provided in Article 94 subparagraph 4 of the Labor Standards Act and is ultimately a labor dispute, and therefore, it shall be subject to arbitration award. The matters related to the standing committee, such as the establishment and organization of the standing committee, shall be within the necessary scope in order to promote rational and fair personnel or sanctions in the workplace, and shall be included in "matters concerning commendation and sanctions" as provided in subparagraph 10 of Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act, and shall be subject to arbitration award for the same reason.

However, while working hours of members of a trade union are in principle inconsistent with the duty of workers to provide labor, it is not permitted, and it cannot be deemed that it constitutes working conditions as set forth in the labor contract relations between an employer and an employee, and even if there are provisions on those matters in the collective agreement between both parties to the labor relations, which have been conducting the previous collective bargaining or collective bargaining, it cannot be deemed as working conditions as a matter of course, so the disagreement between the parties to the labor relations cannot be deemed as a labor dispute, and therefore, it shall not be subject to arbitration award unless there are any special circumstances.

In addition, the labor union's full-time employment system, which is generally exempted from the obligation to provide labor under the labor contract to the employer, is recognized only when the employer approves the labor union's work through the collective agreement, etc. as a form of convenience provision for the labor union. It is not a working condition as to the treatment of the workers in the labor contract relationship between the employer and the worker. It is merely a matter of voluntary bargaining, and the dispute on it is merely a matter of discretionary bargaining, and it is not a labor dispute, barring any special circumstance, it cannot

Ultimately, the part of the arbitration award of this case concerning the arbitration award rendered ex officio shall be deemed to be unlawful as to the matters not subject to the arbitration award of this case among the arbitration award of this case.

3. Meanwhile, if the term of validity of the arbitration award has been established by the arbitration award itself, the arbitration award shall lose its validity after the lapse of the term, and if such arbitration award has become invalidated, there are no legal interests in seeking the cancellation of the arbitration award, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interests are infringed upon due to the remaining external shape of the arbitration award after the lapse of the term (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10503, May 12, 1992). Thus, according to the records, the term of validity of the arbitration award in this case is obvious that it is July 14, 195, and the term of validity of the arbitration award in this case shall expire after the lapse of the term of validity.

Therefore, the court below should reject the lawsuit of this case, if it is judged that there are special circumstances to see that there are legal interests to seek revocation, such as that there are disputes about the validity of dismissal disposition, commendation or disciplinary action against the plaintiff or the designated parties, or that there are disputes about the payment of money and valuables during the period of union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union union

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)