Validity of the collective agreement and rules of employment on grounds of dismissal;

Article 36(1) of the Trade Union Act provides that the part of the rules of employment or labor contract that violates the standards for the treatment of workers and other working conditions provided for in the collective agreement shall be null and void. Thus, if the grounds for disciplinary action are prescribed in the collective agreement and it is not possible to take disciplinary action unless otherwise provided for in the provisions of the collective agreement, the new grounds for disciplinary action provided for in the rules of employment shall be against the said collective agreement and shall not be subject to disciplinary action, and if the collective agreement provides that "the company shall not take disciplinary action except for any of the following cases," the rules

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 97(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 36(1) of the Trade Union Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-

Plaintiff

Busan Passenger Transport Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na55499 delivered on December 1, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The defendant's ground of appeal No. 1

The court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff, while serving as a bus driver of the defendant company on January 2, 1991, caused two personal injury and 880,000 won due to contact with the passenger car on January 2, 1991, and embezzled 2,000 won out of the operating income such as passenger fares received from the passenger on August 17, 191, around 20:35, the court below held that the defendant company and the Korea Automobile Workers' Union Federation of Incheon branch of the Seoul branch did not constitute "when causing substantial property damage to the company" under Article 56 (1) 3 of the collective agreement between the defendant company and the defendant company and the Korea Automobile Workers' Union of Seoul branch of the Seoul branch, and the defendant did not have any other reasons to recognize that the defendant embezzled 2,00 won during one time more than 14 times and 20 days more than 15 days more than 20 days more than 14 days more than 20 days more than 30 days more than 20 days more than 30 days.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below held that Article 36 (1) of the Trade Union Act provides that the part of the rules of employment or labor contract which violates the standards for the labor conditions and other workers' treatment provided for in the collective agreement shall be null and void. If the grounds for disciplinary action are prescribed in the collective agreement and it is not possible to take disciplinary action except in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreement, the grounds for disciplinary action newly provided for in the rules of employment shall not be disciplinary action against the above collective agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da48697, Apr. 27, 1993). Article 56 (1) of the said collective agreement provides that "the company shall not take disciplinary action except in cases where its members fall under any of the following subparagraphs." In addition to the grounds provided for in Article 56 (1) of the said collective agreement, Article 61 (20, 22, 23, 52, and 55 of the rules of employment of the defendant company which provides for new grounds for disciplinary action shall not be interpreted as legitimate in light of the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)