The case holding that if a collective agreement provides that a notice of attendance of the disciplinary committee to be notified three days prior to the holding of the disciplinary committee is served only after the holding date of the disciplinary committee, the disciplinary dismissal by a resolution of the disciplinary committee constitutes a dismissal without justifiable grounds under Article 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act

In order to take disciplinary action under a collective agreement, if the disciplinary committee notifies the relevant union members at least three days prior to the holding of the disciplinary committee, and if the disciplinary committee provides that the relevant union members shall be given an opportunity to vindicate by mail, the company has sent the notice of attendance of the disciplinary committee at least 2 days prior to the holding of the disciplinary committee, but the next day is more than 10:00 and not more than 14:40 days after the holding of the disciplinary committee. If the company is dismissed on the same day by holding the disciplinary committee without hearing the explanation of the relevant union members at the scheduled time of holding the disciplinary committee and immediately taking disciplinary action without hearing the explanation of the relevant union members, the above disciplinary action is deemed to constitute dismissal without justifiable grounds under Article 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act.

Articles 27 and 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 36 of the Trade Union Act

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

Korea Fair Trade Corporation

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu15381 delivered on April 18, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 25(3) of the collective agreement of the plaintiff company provides that "When the company intends to take disciplinary action, it shall notify the relevant union members and the union members by not later than three days prior to the holding of the disciplinary committee" by stating the personal information of the person subject to disciplinary action, grounds for disciplinary action, date and place of the disciplinary committee, etc., and Article 25(4) of the same agreement provides that "the disciplinary committee shall give the relevant union members an opportunity to vindicate." On October 7, 1989, the plaintiff company established a policy to refer the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "the intervenor") to the disciplinary committee for the same reason as at the time of original adjudication. The court below held the disciplinary committee at the second floor of the plaintiff company on October 13, 190, and decided that the intervenor was present at the second floor of the plaintiff company without any justifiable reasons for the above collective agreement, and it shall be held on October 10 of the same year and served the defendant's notice of disciplinary action on the 14th day of the same month.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)