Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 2: Employer
2. Determination of the Existence of Employer Status under the Labor Union Act
2.1 Concept of a Person Acting on Behalf of Business Owner and Always Representing the Interest of Employer
| Supreme Court Decision on September 8, 2011, Case 2008du13873 | |||||
| 2008du13873
* Plaintiff, Appellant: Korean University Workers' Union * Defendant, Appellee: Chairman of the Central Labor Commission * Defendant Assisting Participant: Educational Corporation Dongwon Yukyoung Association 1. Facts: (Omitted) 2. Court Judgment: a. According to Article 2, Items 2 and 4, Clause (a) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labor Union Act'), employers under the Labor Union Act, managers of business operations, or persons acting on behalf of the employer concerning matters related to the employees of the business, and those who always act in the interest of the employer, are prohibited from participating in labor unions. The purpose of this provision is to ensure the independence of labor unions. Here, 'persons acting on behalf of the employer concerning matters related to the employees of the business' refers to those who have been granted certain authority and responsibility by the employer to make decisions on working conditions such as personnel, salary, welfare, and labor management, or to issue work-related orders or supervise and direct the work. 'Persons who always act in the interest of the employer' refers to those who directly participate in personnel, salary, disciplinary actions, audits, and labor management decisions related to employees or handle confidential matters regarding the employer's labor relations plans and policies, such that their duties and responsibilities are in direct conflict with their duties and responsibilities as union members. Therefore, whether a person falls under these categories should not be uniformly determined by certain job grades or titles. Persons whose job duties are merely auxiliary or advisory and do not have a substantial potential for conflict between their job duties and union activities should not be considered as falling under these categories. b. In a Case where School Corporation A, which establishes and operates a private university, demanded that 48 of its employees, deemed unable to participate in the labor union due to their positions, withdraw from the branch of the Korean University Workers' Union, the union filed for relief against this as an act of 'domination and intervention in the organization and operation of the labor union,' claiming it to be an unfair labor practice. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed this retrial claim. The judgment that employees at the manager level and above, who were granted the authority to finalize tasks such as task allocation and attendance management of their subordinates, were considered as 'persons acting on behalf of the employer concerning matters related to the employees,' is reasonable and acceptable. However, it cannot be immediately concluded that employees below the manager level, who are in charge of personnel, labor, budget, accounting, or serve as the president's secretary, dedicated driver, or security guard, fall under 'persons who always act in the interest of the employer.' Therefore, it is necessary to investigate whether these employees' actual duties and job authorities qualify them as 'persons who always act in the interest of the employer.' Additionally, the determination of whether an act constitutes an unfair labor practice should not be based solely on whether the employees are qualified to join the union. Other circumstances that might indicate the intention of an unfair labor practice should also be examined. Consequently, the previous judgment, which concluded that the demand for withdrawal from the union made to employees below the manager level was not an unfair labor practice on the grounds that most of these employees did not qualify as 'persons who always act in the interest of the employer,' was found to contain legal errors and misunderstandings. |
|||||
| Download : 대법 2008두13873.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents