Section 3: Collective Industrial Relations
Chapter 2: Plural Labor Union
4. Determination of Negotiation Representative Labor Union by Majority Labor Union
4.1 Interpretation of the Date of Public Notification of Negotiation Union Determination as the Standard for Majority Union Determination
| Seoul Administrative Court Decision on December 13, 2013, Case 2013guhap18995 | |||||
| * Plaintiff: ○○○○ Co., Ltd.
* Defendant: Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission * Defendant's Auxiliary Intervenor: ○○○○ Labor Union 1. Facts a. The intervenor union requested bargaining with the plaintiff on February 26, 2013, for the conclusion of a collective agreement. The nonparty union made a similar request on February 28, 2013. However, the plaintiff did not timely announce the bargaining requests or issue the confirmation announcement of the labor unions requesting bargaining. b. On March 21, 2013, the plaintiff's CEO, the branch head of the intervenor union, and the head of the nonparty union met and agreed that the plaintiff would conclude a collective agreement with the majority union among the multiple unions. They also agreed to compare the number of union members as of either March 21 or March 28, 2013. c. Based on this agreement, the plaintiff announced from March 21, 2013, to March 28, 2013, that the intervenor union and the nonparty union were confirmed as labor unions requesting bargaining. d. On March 28, 2013, the plaintiff's CEO, the branch head of the intervenor union, and the head of the nonparty union met again. The plaintiff's CEO received the current union membership lists from both the intervenor union and the nonparty union. The CEO informed the branch head of the intervenor union and the head of the nonparty union that, according to the lists, the intervenor union had 18 members and the nonparty union had 23 members, making the nonparty union the majority union eligible for bargaining with the plaintiff. Neither the branch head of the intervenor union nor the head of the nonparty union raised any objections (although the procedure of notifying the employer with joint signatures or seals of the representatives and bargaining committee members of the bargaining representative labor union was omitted). Consequently, the plaintiff announced from March 28, 2013, to April 2, 2013, that the nonparty union was the majority labor union. e. Concerning the announcement of the majority labor union, the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the plaintiff's announcement on March 28, 2013, regarding the majority labor union was invalid and that there was no majority labor union in the bargaining unit. Following this decision, the nonparty union made another bargaining request to the plaintiff on April 24, 2013. The plaintiff then invited the intervenor union to participate in the bargaining as well. When the intervenor union did not respond, the plaintiff followed the unified bargaining procedure stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Union Act and confirmed the nonparty union as the majority labor union on May 23, 2013. 2. Court Judgment a. The single bargaining channel procedure is designed to reasonably coordinate and limit the constitutionally guaranteed right to collective bargaining within the framework of the current Labor Union Act, which permits multiple labor unions. Due to its nature, the regulations regarding the single bargaining channel procedure should be interpreted as mandatory provisions overall. In this context, the reference date for determining the majority labor union, known as the confirmation announcement date of the labor unions requesting bargaining, should be understood not as the actual date when the employer made the confirmation announcement (the actual confirmation announcement date) but as the date when the confirmation announcement should have been made according to the law (the proper confirmation announcement date). If interpreted otherwise, delaying the confirmation announcement by the employer could result in changing the majority labor union, leading to unreasonable outcomes. However, the current single bargaining channel procedure allows the labor unions confirmed or determined as labor unions requesting bargaining to autonomously designate the bargaining representative labor union within 14 days from the confirmation announcement date. Therefore, it is permissible for these labor unions to autonomously agree to designate the bargaining representative labor union differently from what the law initially intended within this period. This autonomous agreement can pertain to designating a specific labor union as the bargaining representative labor union or deciding the method of selecting the bargaining representative labor union. b. Based on the aforementioned facts and evidence, it is recognized that the multiple labor unions at the plaintiff's workplace, namely the intervenor union and the nonparty union, along with the plaintiff as the employer, agreed on March 21, 2013 (confirmation announcement date of the labor unions requesting bargaining), to compare the number of union members as of that day or March 28, 2013, and have the majority labor union engage in collective bargaining with the plaintiff. They met again on March 28, 2013, confirmed the nonparty union as the majority labor union based on the member count as of that day, and agreed that the nonparty union would be the bargaining union with the plaintiff. This agreement can be seen as an autonomous decision to designate the bargaining representative labor union within the period allowed for such autonomous determination among the labor unions confirmed or determined as labor unions requesting bargaining. Although the procedure of notifying the employer with joint signatures or seals of the representatives and bargaining committee members of the bargaining representative labor union regarding the result was omitted, the presence of the plaintiff's CEO at the meeting where the agreement was reached means that the omission of this procedure does not invalidate the agreement. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the nonparty union was designated as the bargaining representative labor union on March 28,2013, in accordance with the agreement. |
|||||
| Download : 서울행법 2013구합18995.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents