Where disciplinary action is taken by a resolution of the standing committee organized in violation of the provisions of disciplinary action under the collective agreement, the effect of disciplinary action shall be effective if the quorum is satisfied even with the exception of non-qualified members (negative)

The disciplinary provisions of a company’s collective agreement stipulate that disciplinary action shall be deliberated upon by the standing committee in order to punish union members, and the composition of the standing committee shall be four members of the labor union. However, if a trade union violates such disciplinary regulations and only two members of the standing committee are present, and the standing committee is organized, including two employees of the standing committee, and if a disciplinary action is taken through a resolution of the standing committee, the exercise of such disciplinary power shall be deemed null and void as against the justice of the procedure regardless of whether the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized. The same applies to the extent that there is an error in the composition of the standing committee, even if the quorum is met with the exclusion of the non-qualified members.

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Da8077 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2112) Supreme Court Decision 93Da28553 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1306) Supreme Court Decision 94Da3612 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1433)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorneys Choi Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Mobilization Industry Co., Ltd. (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorneys Song Jae-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na32493 delivered on September 28, 1994

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The provision of disciplinary proceedings in a collective agreement is important to ensure the fair exercise of the right of disciplinary action and promote the rational operation of the disciplinary system, and as the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the provision of disciplinary action in the collective agreement of the defendant company is to undergo deliberation by the standing committee in order to punish union members, and the composition of the standing committee is to allow four union members to participate in the composition of each labor union. However, if the above standing committee is in violation of such disciplinary regulations, including two union members and two union members of the standing committee without qualification, and if the disciplinary action was taken against the plaintiffs through the resolution of the standing committee, such disciplinary action shall be deemed to be null and void as an action against justice in the procedure regardless of whether the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized, and even if the quorum is satisfied with the exception of non-qualified members as pointed out by the lawsuit, it shall be deemed that the above standing committee has an error in the composition itself.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a resolution or procedure. We are without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Due to the disciplinary dismissal of the instant case, the fact-finding and determination by the lower court on the daily income of the Plaintiffs, who are taxi drivers, are deemed correct in light of the records and relevant evidence. In so doing, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of benefits and the deduction of interim income. We do not have any merit.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)