Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 2: Employer
2. Determination of the Existence of Employer Status under the Labor Union Act
2.3 Concept of the Employer Association as the Counterpart That Is to Have Collective Bargaining with Labor Union
| Supreme Court, June 22, 1999, Decision 98du137 | |||||
| * Plaintiff, Appellant: Yeosu Restaurant Labor Union
* Defendant, Appellee: Chairman of the Central Labor Commission * Codefendant, Supporting Party: Korea Food Service Industry Association, Yeosu Branch, et al. 1. Facts: a. The participating branches of the Korea Food Service Industry Association are cooperatives organized under Article 44 of the Food Sanitation Act, composed of individuals licensed to operate restaurants. Their objective is to enhance member solidarity, improve food culture, and contribute to public health improvement. They conduct their operations without any provision for engaging in collective bargaining or concluding collective agreements with labor unions, nor do they manage labor relations. b. Prior to 1988, collective bargaining had occurred between the predecessor of the Yeosu Branch, the former Yeosu Association, and the labor union, resulting in a collective agreement. However, this agreement was made by the executive of the former Yeosu Association, who was delegated as the negotiating representative and acted as the representative of the restaurant owners, not as an employers' association. Moreover, since their establishment, the participants have neither engaged in collective bargaining with the labor union comprising their employees nor been delegated the authority to conduct collective bargaining by their members. 2. Court Judgment: a. According to the former Labor Union Act (abolished on December 31,1996, by Law No. 5244), Article 33, Clauses 1 and 4, an employers' association eligible for collective bargaining with a labor union must have the authority to regulate or adjust its members who are employers in labor relations. For the employers' association to have such authority, it must aim to engage in collective bargaining and conclude collective agreements, and also have control over its individual members who are employers. b. The court of the prior instance found that the participants, as economic organizations aiming to improve the economic status of their members, are not groups corresponding to labor unions. Their charter and customary practices do not grant them authority to engage in collective bargaining or conclude collective agreements, nor have they been delegated such powers by their members. Based on the legal principles and records previously reviewed, the fact-finding and judgment of the lower court are deemed proper. There is no illegality, such as factual errors or misunderstandings of the law regarding employers' associations as counterparts in collective bargaining, as alleged in the grounds for appeal. |
|||||
| Download : 대법 98두 137.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents