Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 3: Entity Eligible for Remedy and Need for Remedy, etc.
2. Extinction of Need for Remedy
2.1 Extinction of Need for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Upon Final Judgment of Employee's Defeat in Civil Litigation
| Supreme Court, May 24, 2012, Decision 2010du15964 | |||||
| * Plaintiffs/Appellants: As listed in the attached plaintiffs' list
* Defendants/Appellees: Chairman of the Central Labor Commission * Co-defendants: Company Ka○ro 1. Facts: (Omitted) 2. Court Judgment: a. Ex officio judgment on the legality of the Case filed by Plaintiffs A, B, C, and D: If a worker applies for administrative relief to the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that a disadvantageous disposition, such as dismissal, constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, and separately files a lawsuit against the employer to confirm the invalidity of the dismissal, once the judgment on the dismissal is confirmed, it is no longer necessary to maintain the relief procedure for unfair dismissal. As long as the disadvantageous disposition, such as dismissal, is recognized as legitimate, the Labor Relations Commission cannot issue a relief order for unfair labor practices. Therefore, in the above Case, a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the National Labor Relations Commission's original ruling, which upheld the local labor committee's decision to dismiss the worker's unfair dismissal and relief application for unfair labor practices, is inappropriate due to a lack of legal interest in the lawsuit. According to the records, Plaintiffs A, B, C, and D each filed a lawsuit against the participant's company seeking confirmation of the invalidity of their dismissals, and during the continuation of the appeal in this Case , they lost their Cases, with the judgments becoming final. Based on the above legal principles, it has been confirmed that the dismissal of Plaintiffs A, B, C, and D no longer requires the continuation of procedures for unfair dismissal and relief from unfair labor practices, rendering all lawsuits filed by these Plaintiffs inappropriate due to a lack of legal interest. As a result, the judgment of the lower court regarding Plaintiffs A, B, C, and D must be reversed. b. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the remaining Plaintiffs: a) The court below found that there was an urgent need for layoffs in this Case , considering factors such as capital erosion due to cumulative deficits, weakening short-term solvency due to a sharp rise in the debt ratio and a sharp drop in the current ratio, a deteriorating debt structure, a surge in depreciation and interest costs due to management misjudgment, weakening international competitiveness, and worsening profitability due to rising raw material prices. The court further recognized that sufficient efforts were made to avoid dismissals by minimizing the number of eligible individuals and handling honorary retirements. b) In the absence of a labor union organized by a majority of workers, the procedural requirements for redundancy consultation should still be considered met if the other party involved is not formally qualified as a representative of the majority of workers. According to the reasons for the judgment of the lower court and the evidence duly adopted, the Plaintiff Car○Labor Union (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff Union") was not organized by a majority of the participating workers. However, it had negotiated with the participant 12 times regarding the redundancy in this Case . During this process, neither the Plaintiff Union nor any workers, including the Plaintiffs, objected to the Plaintiff Union's authority to negotiate. The nonmembers were aware that the Plaintiff Union was negotiating with the Participant, as evidenced by the contents of notices and the power of attorney provided by the Participant. The Plaintiffs only began to challenge the eligibility of the Plaintiff Union after filing the lawsuit in this Case . In principle, the interpretation of an expression of intention should be based on the indicated text. However, in this context, the interpretation must seek to understand the text within the broader purpose of the expression, considering relevant clauses. In some Case s, a normative interpretation is necessary, taking into account the circumstances, atmosphere, and justification for the expression of intention. Where there are provisions in a collective agreement stating that the employer "agrees" with the labor union on matters that cannot be subject to collective bargaining under the nature of the Gyeongwon right, these provisions must be interpreted in light of the circumstances at the time, their relationship with other provisions of the collective agreement, and whether the labor union shares management responsibility based on the principle that authority comes with responsibility. The meaning of "agreement" in such provisions should be interpreted accordingly. In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to conclude that the lower court erred in interpreting the collective agreement. The court's interpretation, which understood the purpose of the agreement as ensuring the rationality and fairness of restructuring by allowing the plaintiff union an opportunity to present necessary opinions on the criteria for dismissal in advance and by sincerely considering the plaintiff union's opinions, seems justified. c) If it is recognized that an employer, while citing a reason for dismissal on the surface, actually dismissed an employee due to the employee's legitimate union activities, such dismissal constitutes an unfair labor practice. However, if there is a legitimate reason for the dismissal, even if there are signs that the employer was displeased with the employee's union activities or there are indications that the employer may have had an anti-union motive, the dismissal reason cannot simply be considered a pretext, and therefore, it does not constitute an unfair labor practice. Upon reviewing the reasoning of the lower court's judgment in light of this legal principle and the evidence lawfully admitted by the lower court, although there are some parts of the lower court's reasoning that may not be entirely appropriate, the lower court's conclusion that the dismissal in this Case does not constitute an unfair labor practice, as it fulfilled both the substantive and procedural requirements for a dismissal due to managerial reasons, is justified. |
|||||
| Download : 대법 2010두15964.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents