[Plaintiff, Appellee]
[Defendant, Appellant] Industrial Design Packaging Development Institute, Attorney-in-fact Kim Cheol-gi
[Judgment Below] Busan High Court Decision 92Na12117 decided February 12, 1993
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant's attorney-in-fact are examined as follows.
1. As to Ground No. 1
It is the established position of this Court that although the authority to prepare and amend rules of employment (취업규칙) in principle belongs to the employer, such that the employer may prepare and amend the rules of employment in accordance with its own intent, where such amendment changes the working conditions to the disadvantage of the employees, the consent of the employees who were subject to the previous working conditions or rules of employment, obtained through a method of collective decision-making, is required, and an amendment to the rules of employment made without obtaining such consent shall be invalid unless it can be recognized as having reasonableness in light of social norms (see this Court's Decisions 78Da1046 delivered on September 12, 1978; 88Daka4277 delivered on May 9, 1989; and 89Daka24780 delivered on March 13, 1990).
According to the facts lawfully established by the court below, the Employee Remuneration Regulations of the Defendant Institute, as amended effective January 1, 1981, changed the retirement allowance payment rate to the disadvantage of employees, and in making such amendment, the consent of the employees who had been subject to the pre-amendment remuneration regulations, obtained through a method of collective decision-making, was not secured. As pointed out in the argument, the amendment of the Defendant Institute's Employee Remuneration Regulations was made pursuant to instructions issued by the Government under the Act on Budget and Accounting of Government-Invested Institutions (정부투자기관예산회계법), for the purpose of lowering the progressive retirement allowance rates of government-invested institutions, which at the time had reached a level significantly and unreasonably higher than that of ordinary public officials, unifying the differing progressive retirement allowance rates among such institutions, promoting rationalization of management at government-invested institutions suffering from chronic financial difficulties, and thereby stimulating the national economy. As for the procedure of amendment, it was made after resolution by the board of directors and approval by the competent minister, following which it was notified to the employees, and all employees raised no objection to the amendment at that time. Furthermore, even considering that, in terms of the content of the amendment, the previous progressive rate continued to apply to periods of service prior to the amendment, thereby guaranteeing employees' vested rights, these circumstances alone are insufficient to recognize that the amendment of the above Employee Remuneration Regulations had reasonableness in light of social norms such that the consent of the collective body of employees could be dispensed with. Accordingly, the court below's determination that the amendment of the above Employee Remuneration Regulations is invalid is justified, and the judgment below cannot be found to contain the illegality alleged in the argument. This ground for appeal is without merit.
2. As to Ground No. 2
As pointed out in the argument, even though the Defendant Institute notified employees of the fact of the amendment of the above Employee Remuneration Regulations, the fact that all employees continued to work while renewing their employment contracts annually without raising any objection cannot be regarded as constituting implied consent by the employees to the amendment of the Employee Remuneration Regulations. Furthermore, the mere fact, as argued, that all employees of the Defendant Institute continued to work under the amended Employee Remuneration Regulations after the amendment, and that employees including the Plaintiffs received retirement allowances calculated under the amended retirement allowance regulations without objection upon retirement, cannot be regarded as constituting ratification by the employees of the invalid amendment of the above Employee Remuneration Regulations. Therefore, the judgment below cannot be found to contain the illegality alleged in the argument. This ground for appeal is also without merit.
3. As to Ground No. 3
Even if, as argued, a collective agreement accepting the amendment of the above Employee Remuneration Regulations was concluded on December 2, 1991, according to the facts lawfully established by the court below, the Plaintiffs had all already retired prior thereto, and therefore the said collective agreement cannot be applied to the Plaintiffs. This argument, too, cannot be accepted.
4. As to Ground No. 4
Even granting the circumstances alleged in the argument—namely, that the Plaintiffs, knowing the content of the amendment after the amendment of the above Employee Remuneration Regulations, nevertheless continued to work for approximately ten years while renewing their employment contracts annually in accordance with the amended Employee Remuneration Regulations without raising any objection, and that upon retirement they received retirement allowances calculated in accordance with the amended retirement allowance payment rate without reservation of objection—these circumstances alone are insufficient to find that the Plaintiffs' assertion challenging the validity of the amendment of the above Employee Remuneration Regulations is contrary to the principle of good faith (신의칙) and the principle of equity. Therefore, this ground for appeal is also without merit.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are to be borne by the losing party. The Justices participating in this decision are unanimous in their opinion, and it is so ordered as set forth in the Order.
Presiding Justice Kim Yong-jun
Justice Ahn Woo-man
Justice Cheon Kyeong-song
Justice Ahn Yong-deuk (Presiding Reporting Justice)