Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 3: Entity Eligible for Remedy and Need for Remedy, etc.
3. Exceptional Recognition of Need for Remedy
3.2 Recognition of Need for Remedy for Wage Equivalent
| Seoul High Court Decision on July 19, 2007, Case 2006nu27979 | |||||
| * Plaintiff, Appellant: A
* Defendant, Appellee: Chairman of the Central Labor Commission * Intervening Defendant: B 1. Facts: a. The intervenor, a contract employee, initiated collective bargaining demands and played a leading role in the strike resolution process starting on September 12,2005, just before the strike began. b. A collective agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the Dockworkers Union Jeongmyeong Branch on October 14,2005. Based on Article 8 of this agreement, the employment contract between the plaintiff and the intervenor was renewed once and continued thereafter. c. On March 20,2006, the plaintiff notified the intervenor of the termination of employment due to the expiration of the contract period, leading to the intervenor's dismissal on March 23,2006. d. The intervenor subsequently filed for remedy against unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices with the South Jeolla Provincial Labor Commission. The plaintiff appealed the commission's decision to the Central Labor Commission for a review. e. The plaintiff then challenged the Central Labor Commission's review judgment by appealing to the Seoul Administrative Court and later to the Seoul High Court, arguing that the collective agreement was effective only until April 30,2007, per Article 63. Since no further collective agreement was concluded, the intervenor no longer held employee status, rendering the unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices remedy application baseless, and thus the remedy order was erroneous. 2. Court Judgment: At the time of the re-examination ruling (April 10,2006), the collective agreement was validly in effect, and under Article 8 of that agreement, the employment contract between the plaintiff and the intervenor had been renewed once and was in force at that time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the intervenor had no interest in seeking relief for the unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices at that time. Even if the collective agreement has now expired and the employment relationship between the intervenor and the plaintiff has ended, the re-examination ruling includes not only a reinstatement order but also a wage payment order for the period of dismissal among the relief orders issued by the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, which are still effective. The existence of the past employment relationship between the intervenor and the plaintiff remains a premise for the legitimacy of the current relief order. Consequently, the intervenor's application for relief from the unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices should still be considered to have a valid relief interest. |
|||||
| Download : 서울고법 2006누27979.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents