Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 2: Employer
2. Determination of the Existence of Employer Status under the Labor Union Act
2.4 Employer in Unfair Labor Practice Due to Domination and Interference
| Supreme Court, March 25, 2010, Decision 2007du8881 | |||||
| * Plaintiff, Appellant: ○○ Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.
* Defendant, Appellee: Chairman of the Central Labor Commission 1. Facts: a. The plaintiff company managed the overall work content required by employees, including those of in-house subcontractors, referred to as Participants 1, 2, 3, and 4 (hereinafter 'participants'), for the smooth execution of processes and quality control. Additionally, through individual subcontracting agreements detailing work time, duration, locations, and content, the plaintiff company effectively controlled and managed working hours and schedules. This included exercising real decision-making power over union activities needed by employees, such as guaranteed union activity time during general assemblies or delegate meetings, and paid union activity time for union officers. b. In-house subcontractors only decided which employee would work on already determined tasks based on individual subcontracting agreements that fixed work times, places, and content. c. Employees of in-house subcontractors used tools and materials provided by the plaintiff company to work within the company's premises. Thus, they integrated into the work order planned by the plaintiff company and worked alongside the company's direct employees on shipbuilding tasks. d. The manner of work progression, hours, extensions, breaks, and night shifts were also effectively under the direct supervision and command of the plaintiff company's process managers (direct supervisors or team leaders). 2. Court Judgment: Article 1 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act states, "To ensure workers' rights to unionize, bargain collectively, and take collective action as guaranteed by the Constitution, to maintain and improve working conditions and enhance the economic and social status of workers, to fairly adjust labor relations, prevent and resolve labor disputes, thereby maintaining industrial peace and contributing to the development of the national economy." Furthermore, Article 81 specifies that "employers cannot engage in the unfair labor practices listed therein," Article 82 allows "workers or unions harmed by an employer's unfair labor practices to seek remedy from the Labor Committee," and Article 84 mandates that "the Labor Committee must issue a remedy order if it finds that an unfair labor practice has occurred, or reject the application if it finds otherwise." Articles 81 to 86 establish a system for remedying unfair labor practices to ensure the constitutional rights of labor, prevent and remove employers' actions that disrupt collective labor relations, and swiftly normalize labor relations. Thus, prevention and correction of unfair labor practices are achieved through the Labor Committee's remedial orders, and anyone in a legal or practical position to carry out these orders is considered an employer for the purpose of such remedies. Moreover, Article 81(4) specifies "domination and interference in the organization or operation of a union" as unfair labor practices, aiming to restore normal labor relations by eliminating and correcting actions that violate the right to organize. Therefore, determining whether someone is an employer for the purpose of domination and interference involves considering the content of the remedy application, the concrete form of involvement in labor relations, and the actual influence or control exerted. Hence, if someone in a position to significantly and concretely control and decide on the basic labor conditions of employees, as if they were the employer, engages in actions like dominating or interfering with the organization or operation of a union as specified in Article 81(4), they are considered an employer responsible for implementing a corrective remedy order. Combining these legal principles and facts, the plaintiff company appears to be in a position to substantially and specifically control and decide on the basic employment conditions of the in-house subcontractor employees, thereby qualifying as an employer responsible for correcting unfair labor practices as specified by law. |
|||||
| Download : 대법 2007두8881.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents