[Plaintiff, Appellee]
[Defendant, Appellant] Korea Institute of Industrial Design Promotion (Attorney Lee Young-gyu, Counsel for the defendant)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 95Na12578 rendered on December 21, 1995
[Order]
The part of the judgment below against the Defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal of the Defendant's litigation representative are examined.
1. A collective agreement is an agreement concluded by a labor union with an employer or an employer's association concerning working conditions and other matters arising from labor-management relations. Where a labor union concludes a collective agreement with the employer's side that retroactively consents to or ratifies the existing standards for determining working conditions such as wages, working hours, and retirement allowances, the effect of such consent or ratification shall arise with respect to union members or workers who work for the enterprise after the collective agreement comes into effect and who become subject to the application of that agreement (see this Court's Decision 91Da34073 rendered on July 24, 1992). Accordingly, even in a case where a provision of the rules of employment concerning the rate of retirement allowance payment is amended disadvantageously to workers without obtaining the consent of the workers through a collective decision-making method, such that the former retirement allowance payment rate should be applied to existing workers whose vested interests are infringed thereby, if the labor union concludes a collective agreement with the employer's side to the effect that the amended retirement allowance payment rate shall be followed, then, in principle, the amended retirement allowance payment rate shall also apply to the existing workers who become subject to that agreement, regardless of whether it was known that the former retirement allowance payment rate should be applied to the existing workers whose vested interests are infringed thereby.
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, comprehensively considering the evidence presented, found the following facts: that the Plaintiffs joined the Defendant as employees between November 14, 1970 and June 1, 1980, worked there, and retired between February 10, 1992 and March 31, 1994; that the Defendant, since its establishment on March 6, 1969, had a provision in its employee remuneration regulations providing for the payment of retirement allowances to retiring employees calculated by multiplying the average wage by a retirement allowance payment rate based on a high progressive rate according to years of service (hereinafter referred to as the "former regulations"), but on January 1, 1981, amended the employee remuneration regulations without obtaining the consent of the workers through a collective decision-making method, thereby lowering the retirement allowance payment rate (hereinafter referred to as the "amended regulations"); that the Defendant's labor union, in concluding the 1991 collective agreement with the Defendant, in advance placed as one of the key provisions of the collective agreement a clause stating that "the retirement allowance payment rate shall follow the regulations of the Institute," and concluded the collective agreement with the Defendant containing the above content on December 2, 1991, which took effect from that date; that at the time of the conclusion of the collective agreement, 139 of the Defendant's total of 273 employees were union members; and that the Defendant paid retirement allowances calculated pursuant to the amended regulations to the Plaintiffs who retired after the collective agreement took effect. Having found these facts, the court below determined that the provision of the amended regulations concerning the retirement allowance payment rate was amended disadvantageously to the workers without obtaining the consent of the workers through a collective decision-making method, and thus was invalid as to the existing workers who had joined before the amendment, such that the former regulations remained valid; and that since there was no evidence to establish that the Defendant's labor union, at the time of concluding the collective agreement on December 2, 1991, knew that the provision of the amended regulations concerning the retirement allowance payment rate was invalid and nevertheless concluded the collective agreement with the above content, it could not be found that the union had retroactively ratified the validity of the provision of the amended regulations concerning the retirement allowance payment rate, or had consented to recognizing the effect of the amended regulations regardless of their validity or invalidity. On this basis, the court below determined that the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the difference between the retirement allowance calculated pursuant to the former regulations and the retirement allowance already paid.
3. However, even if the Defendant amended the rules of employment disadvantageously to the workers without obtaining the consent of the workers through a collective decision-making method, the amendment of the rules of employment is nonetheless valid, and the rules of employment having current normative effect are the amended rules of employment; it is only that, as to existing workers whose vested interests would be infringed, the former rules of employment shall apply (see this Court's en banc Decision 91Da45165 rendered on December 22, 1992). Meanwhile, if the facts are as found by the court below, then, by concluding a collective agreement providing that "the retirement allowance payment rate shall follow the regulations of the Institute," the Defendant's labor union must be deemed to have retroactively consented to the application of the retirement allowance payment rate under the amended regulations—which had normative effect at the time of the conclusion of the collective agreement—even to existing workers who had joined before the amendment of the rules of employment and who become subject to the above collective agreement. Therefore, regardless of whether it was known, at the time of the conclusion of the collective agreement, that the amended regulations' retirement allowance payment rate did not apply to existing workers, the amended regulations should be applied in calculating the retirement allowances of the Plaintiffs who retired after the above collective agreement took effect (provided that, according to Article 11 of the amended regulations, the retirement allowance calculation standard under the amended regulations applies only to periods of service on and after August 1, 1983, and separate calculation standards are provided for the period of service on and before December 31, 1980, and for the period of service from January 1, 1981 to July 31, 1983; accordingly, these standards must be followed in calculating the Plaintiffs' retirement allowances).
Nevertheless, the court below determined that the former regulations should be applied in calculating the Plaintiffs' retirement allowances, and thus the judgment below contains an error of law based on a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning the labor union's consent to the disadvantageous amendment of rules of employment and the effect of the collective agreement. The ground of appeal pointing out this error is well-founded.
4. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the Defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justice Song Jin-hoon (Presiding Justice), Justice Cheon Gyeong-song, Justice Ji Chang-gwon (Justice in charge), Justice Shin Seong-taek