[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee] Valeo Electrical Systems Korea Corporation (Valeo전장시스템스코리아 주식회사) (Attorney Kwak Jeong-hwan, Counsel for the Defendant)
[Court Below] Daegu High Court Decision 2012Na1390 decided September 5, 2012
[Order]
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal (including the supplementary brief on grounds of appeal submitted after the expiration of the period for submission of the grounds of appeal, to the extent it supplements the grounds of appeal) are examined as follows.
1. Legal principles concerning the legitimacy of the commencement and continuation of a lockout and the employer's obligation to pay wages
A lockout by an employer as provided in Article 46 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법) can be recognized as a legitimate act of dispute by the employer only where it is a reasonable defensive measure against the employees' act of dispute, in light of specific circumstances such as the bargaining attitude and process of the employer and employees, the purpose and method of the employees' act of dispute, and the degree of harm suffered by the employer as a result thereof. Where the lockout goes beyond a defensive purpose against the trade union's act of dispute and instead constitutes a preemptive, offensive lockout aimed at actively weakening the organizational power of the trade union, its legitimacy cannot be recognized. Where the lockout is not evaluated as a legitimate act of dispute, the employer cannot be relieved of the obligation to pay wages to the employees subject to the lockout during the period of the lockout (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da34331 decided May 26, 2000; Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1097 decided June 13, 2003, etc.).
Meanwhile, even where the commencement of a lockout itself may be considered legitimate in light of specific circumstances such as the employees' act of dispute, if, after a certain point in time, the employees have discontinued their act of dispute and expressed a genuine intention to return to work, but the employer continues to maintain the lockout in a manner that has transformed, beyond a defensive purpose against the employees' act of dispute, into an offensive lockout aimed at actively weakening the organizational power of the trade union, the lockout thereafter must be deemed to have lost its legitimacy, and accordingly the employer cannot be relieved of the obligation to pay wages during that period.
2. As to the first ground of appeal
The court below, citing the judgment of the first instance, found the following facts: when the Defendant implemented outsourcing of part of its security work, the Korean Metal Workers' Union Gyeongju Branch Valeo Mando Chapter (전국금속노동조합 경주지부 발레오만도 지회; hereinafter "the Valeo Mando Chapter") obstructed the Defendant's delivery operations and refused night work and overtime work on February 4, 2010; the Chapter decided at a general meeting of union members on February 5, 2010 to engage in an act of dispute, refused overtime work that day, and thereafter engaged in a slowdown from February 9, 2010 to February 12, 2010; the Valeo Mando Chapter's act of dispute caused disruption to the Defendant's supply of parts to automobile manufacturers; although the Defendant requested the Valeo Mando Chapter on February 10, 2010 to discontinue the act of dispute and hold labor-management consultations, the Chapter continued the slowdown, stating that it could not discontinue the act of dispute without withdrawal of the outsourcing of security work; the Defendant attempted to produce ordered parts during the Lunar New Year holiday from February 13, 2010 to February 15, 2010 by deploying office workers and others, but union members obstructed this by force; and accordingly, the Defendant implemented a partial lockout from 06:30 on February 16, 2010, prohibiting all access by union members of the Valeo Mando Chapter to the entirety of the Defendant's passenger car plant and commercial vehicle plant. In light of these circumstances, the court below determined that the commencement of the lockout at issue is recognized as legitimate as a reasonable defensive measure against the Valeo Mando Chapter's act of dispute.
Examining the record in light of the legal principles set forth above, the above determination of the court below is justified, and there is no illegality therein, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, in violating the principles of logic and experience beyond the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or in misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the legitimacy of a lockout.
3. As to the second ground of appeal
A. The court below, citing the judgment of the first instance, determined as follows. Even though the Valeo Mando Chapter, during the lockout period, requested the Defendant to withdraw the lockout while expressing the union members' intention to return to work, the following facts were found: the Valeo Mando Chapter, from February 19, 2010, held rallies and demonstrations at the main gate of the Defendant's plant, obstructed the Defendant's business, attempted to enter the company, and continued to commit unlawful acts; the Valeo Mando Chapter, between March 25, 2010 and April 27, 2010, distributed leaflets containing false statements concerning the Defendant's credit and business, and conducted picketing demonstrations in the vicinity of the workplace and around Gyeongju City; the Defendant, even before the date of withdrawal of the lockout, permitted return to work by Valeo Mando Chapter union members who wished to return to work; and the Defendant, in response to the Valeo Mando Chapter's repeated demands to withdraw the lockout, refused on the ground that an intention to return to work without withdrawal of the opposition to the outsourcing of security work could not genuinely be regarded as an intention to terminate the act of dispute and normalize operations, until the court issued a decision suspending the effect of the lockout, whereupon the Defendant withdrew the lockout at issue on May 25, 2010. In light of the bargaining attitude and process between labor and management, the manner of the employees' act of dispute, and the degree of harm suffered by the employer as revealed by these facts, the court below determined that it is difficult to regard the union members' expression of intention to return to work as a genuine intention to return to work, and moreover that the Defendant could not have trusted, based solely on such expression of intention to return to work, that the act of dispute had definitively ended, so as to immediately lift the lockout; accordingly, the maintenance of the lockout at issue until May 24, 2010 is likewise recognized as legitimate as a reasonable defensive measure against the Valeo Mando Chapter's act of dispute.
B. However, the above determination of the court below is difficult to accept, for the following reasons.
First, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence lawfully adopted by the first instance court and the court below, the following facts can be found: ① after the commencement of the lockout at issue, on February 22, 2010, the Valeo Mando Chapter notified the Defendant of its intention that all union members would return to work by February 23, 2010, and requested collective bargaining on February 24, 2010; ② when the Defendant, on March 2, 2010, raised doubts about the sincerity of such dialogue and demanded an apology for, among other things, defamation of the representative director, the Valeo Mando Chapter, on March 8, 2010, expressed regret regarding all matters demanded by the Defendant and apologized for the portion defaming the Defendant; ③ on March 9, 2010, the Valeo Mando Chapter notified the Defendant that, in labor-management dialogue, it would accept the Defendant's request as is and would participate only with Chapter officers, excluding officers of the Metal Workers' Union Gyeongju Branch; ④ the Defendant completely blocked union members' access to the union office or the interior of the plant after the lockout, and in response, the Valeo Mando Chapter, on March 16, 2010, stated that it had no intention of occupying the union office or entering while carrying weapons, and expressed its position that the Chapter would bear full responsibility if any problem arose as the Defendant claimed, while requesting that access to the union office and welfare facilities be permitted; and ⑤ on April 22, 2010, the Valeo Mando Chapter expressed its willingness to consider all options, including resignation of the executive leadership, if the Defendant would withdraw the lockout and resume normal operations. If the facts are as stated above, it can be seen that the Valeo Mando Chapter, on numerous occasions, both expressly and impliedly, promised to discontinue the act of dispute and return to work, to refrain from violent acts or acts obstructing production activities that concerned the Defendant, and to unconditionally accept the Defendant's demands, while requesting withdrawal of the lockout and resolution of the issues through dialogue.
Meanwhile, according to the record, it is true that Valeo Mando Chapter union members, from around March 2, 2010 to around March 6, 2010, held protest demonstrations against the lockout in front of the Defendant's plant, during which unlawful acts such as assault and obstruction of business occurred, and that, from around March 5, 2010 to around March 9, 2010, union members of various workplaces under the Metal Workers' Union Gyeongju Branch attempted joint strikes and rallies in solidarity; however, no material can be found showing that Valeo Mando Chapter union members continued active struggle methods such as holding unlawful demonstrations thereafter, and although the Valeo Mando Chapter side did distribute, from around March 25, 2010, leaflets containing content defaming the Defendant to citizens of Gyeongju, the Plaintiffs assert that from around April 6, 2010 onward they engaged in no such activities defaming the Defendant, including the distribution of leaflets. If so, there is room to find that, even before the withdrawal of the lockout at issue on May 25, 2010, the Valeo Mando Chapter's unlawful acts or hostile acts had already noticeably subsided, such that the state of the act of dispute had, in fact, effectively terminated.
Furthermore, according to the record, the following facts can be found: the Defendant, while continuing to maintain the lockout at issue, selectively allowed approximately 100 union members to return to work through individual contacts by around March 2010, and approximately 300 union members by around April 2010; certain union members, including Nonparty, led and held general meetings on May 19, 2010 and June 7, 2010 to change the organizational form of the Valeo Mando Chapter's union; and the Defendant entered into a contract with Changjo Consulting Labor Consulting Firm (노무법인 창조컨설팅) for the provision of advice on labor-management relations in exchange for compensation, and from around March 2010 received on several occasions from the said labor consulting firm documents entitled "Strategy Documents for Acts of Dispute," the main content of which was a plan, including specific procedures, to induce a decrease in the number of Valeo Mando Chapter union members by encouraging their withdrawal from the union and to promote a change in the organizational form of the Valeo Mando Chapter to an enterprise-level union, all while the Defendant maintained the lockout, for the purpose of establishing a cooperative labor-management relationship. If so, it can be considered that there is a considerable probability that the Defendant, with the deliberate goal of weakening the organizational power and struggle capacity of the Valeo Mando Chapter, planned or intervened in the selective return to work of union members and the holding of general meetings for the change of organizational form as described above.
In light of the legal principles set forth above, examining the above facts and circumstances, the lockout at issue continued for a lengthy period of 98 days, from February 16, 2010 to May 24, 2010, and there is substantial room to find that, from a certain point in time after around March 2010, when a considerable number of union members had returned to work, the lockout at issue had gone beyond the purpose of the Defendant seeking a balance of bargaining power with the Valeo Mando Chapter—that is, beyond a defensive purpose against the Valeo Mando Chapter's act of dispute—and instead constituted a preemptive, offensive lockout aimed at actively weakening the organizational power of the Valeo Mando Chapter, thereby losing its legitimacy.
C. If so, the court below should have more specifically examined matters such as: when the point in time was at which the Valeo Mando Chapter could be regarded as having expressed to the Defendant a genuine intention to return to work, or at which its unlawful acts or hostile acts toward the Defendant could be regarded as having ended, and the point in time at which the Valeo Mando Chapter's struggle capacity could be regarded as having rapidly weakened; the circumstances, purpose, and specific method by which the Defendant selectively promoted union members' return to work; the substantive purpose and background of the Valeo Mando Chapter's pursuit of the resolution to change its organizational form and whether the Defendant was involved therein; and other circumstances from which changes in the relationship between the Valeo Mando Chapter and the Defendant could be inferred. Based on such examination, the court below should have determined whether the Defendant's maintenance of the lockout at issue even after around March 2010 constituted a preemptive, offensive lockout that went beyond a defensive purpose against the Valeo Mando Chapter's act of dispute and instead aimed at actively weakening the organizational power of the Valeo Mando Chapter, and, accordingly, should have recognized the Defendant's obligation to pay wages corresponding to the period after that point in time.
Nevertheless, without reaching such a determination, the court below recognized the legitimacy of the lockout for the entire lockout period based solely on the circumstances stated in its reasoning. This determination of the court below is unlawful, in that it misunderstood the legal principles concerning the legitimacy of a lockout and thereby failed to properly conduct the necessary examination, thereby affecting the judgment; and the ground of appeal pointing this out is well-founded.
4. Conclusion
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further examination and determination, in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating, as stated in the Order.
Justice Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice), Kim Yong-deok, Kim So-young (Justice in Charge), Lee Ki-taek