Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10721 Decided February 10, 2011 [Violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act]

• 사건번호 2010Do10721
• 선고일자 2011. 02. 10.
• 사건분류 Criminal Law

[1] The status of a full-time labor union official under a labor contract, and criteria used to determine whether an employer is obligated to pay wages to a full-time union official during a period of labor strike
[2] Where the defendant, as chief executive officer (""CEO"") of the company, was indicted for violation of ""convenience provisions within a collective agreement"" by failing to pay wages to full-time union officials during a period of labor strike, the Court affirmed the determination of the court below to find the defendant not guilty

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Du32992 Decided September 3, 2020 【Revocation of Disposition Notifying Decertification of Trade Union】

• 사건번호 2016Du32992
• 선고일자 2020. 09. 03.
• 사건분류 Administrative Law

[1] In the principle of parliamentary reservation subsumed in the principle of statutory reservation, which comprises a key component of the principle of the rule of law under the Constitution, method of determining whether a certain matter constitutes an essential matter that fall within the prerogative of the discretionary determination by the National Assembly

When restricting fundamental and essential matters relating to individual rights and obligations, as well as individual freedom or rights guaranteed under the Constitution, whether the essential matters comprising such restriction ought to be voluntarily regulated by the National Assembly by statutes (affirmative)

[2] Whether an enforcement decree of a statute can revise or complement matters pertaining to an individual’s rights and obligations stipulated by law and stipulate new matters that are not statutorily prescribed without legislative delegation (negative)

[3] Whether Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which stipulates matters regarding notification of decertification of a trade union that are left unstipulated in the Act without legislative delegation, is a provision that fundamentally restricts the three labor rights enshrined in the Constitution and is thus null and void in and of itself (affirmative)

[4] In the case where: (a) the Minister of Employment and Labor accepted a report on the establishment of a trade union submitted by Trade Union A, which consists of teachers and education workers of public and private schools nationwide as members, and issued a certificate of report of establishment; (b) the Minister demanded that Trade Union A take correction measures, such as revision of the relevant bylaw provision allowing non-workers to join the union, on the grounds that “although the Minister demanded, on two separate occasions, that Trade Union A revise the relevant bylaw provision, Trade Union A nonetheless did not heed the demand, and to the Ministry’s knowledge, dismissed workers are currently joined in the trade union as members and participating in union activities,” but Trade Union A did not revise the bylaw; and (c) the Minister of Employment and Labor notified Trade Union A that it “shall not be regarded as a trade union under the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers’ Unions” in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers’ Unions, Article 12(3)1 and Article 2 Subparag. 4 Item (d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Article 9(1) of the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers’ Unions, and Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, the case holding that Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act regarding notification of decertification of a trade union contravenes the constitutional principle of statutory reservation and thus is invalid in and of itself and, therefore, that the foregoing notification of decertification of a trade union based on the said Article is devoid of legal grounds and is therefore unlawful

Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1927 Decided September 3, 2020 【Interference with Business; Refusal to Leave】

• 사건번호 2015Do1927
• 선고일자 2020. 09. 03.
• 사건분류 Criminal Law

[1] In a case where industrial actions of workers affiliated with the contractor took place at the owner’s business site and consequentially infringed the owner’s legal interest protected under the Criminal Act, whether the unlawfulness of infringement of the legal interest is canceled out and deemed as a legally justifiable act in a relationship with the owner that is not the employer on the grounds that the pertinent industrial actions satisfied the lawfulness requirements in a relationship with the contractor, the employer (negative)

In a case where a lawfully organized industrial action against the employer, the contractor, took place at the owner’s business site and thus violated the owner’s legal interest protected under the Criminal Act, the circumstance where the illegality therein is cancelled out as an “action which does not violate the social rules” in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and the standards for determining whether any case falls within such circumstance

[2] In a case where the employer hires or substitutes a person unrelated to the business concerned during the period of industrial actions to facilitate the performance of work that is interrupted because of the industrial actions, and if the employees who participated in the industrial actions used considerable force to stop the illegal substitution of labor, whether such use of force is a justifiable act that cancels out the unlawfulness therein (affirmative), and the method of determining whether the use of force to stop the illegal substitution of labor is an act acceptable in light of the generally accepted social ideas and can thus be considered a justifiable act