[Plaintiffs, Appellees] Plaintiff 1 and 26 others, Plaintiffs' Attorney Lee Kwang-soo
[Defendant, Appellant] Korea Airport Management Corporation (한국공항관리공단), Defendant's Attorney Lee Byung-yong
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 91Na8366 rendered on April 17, 1991
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
[Reasoning]
This Court examines the grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant's attorney.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, upon comprehensively considering the evidence cited therein, found the following facts: Upon its establishment around May 1980, the Defendant Corporation enacted compensation regulations, including retirement allowance payment provisions, providing that any executive or employee who worked for one year or more before retiring would be paid a retirement allowance in an amount equal to the compensation at the time of retirement multiplied by a progressively increasing payment rate according to years of continuous service, as set forth in Attached Table 2-1 of the judgment below, and enforced these regulations from July 1 of that year. Thereafter, around February 1981, in accordance with the Government's Guidelines on Retirement Allowance Payments for Executives and Employees of Government-Invested Institutions, the Defendant Corporation partially amended its compensation regulations to lower the retirement allowance payment rate as set forth in Attached Table 2-2 of the judgment below, obtained the approval of the Minister of Transportation, and retroactively enforced the amended compensation regulations from January 1 of that year.
Having found the foregoing facts, the court below held as follows: In order to unilaterally change existing working conditions to the disadvantage of employees by amending the rules of employment, the consent of the group of employees who were subject to the previous rules of employment, obtained through a collective decision-making method, is required. As for the method of obtaining such consent, where there is a labor union organized by a majority of the employees, the consent of that labor union is required, and where there is no such labor union, the consent of a majority of the employees obtained through a meeting of the employees is required. Absent consent obtained by such method, the change cannot take effect as a valid amendment of the rules of employment, and this holds true even with respect to employees who individually consented to such amendment of the rules of employment. The court below further held that even if, at the time of the amendment of the compensation regulations, the Plaintiffs had not yet completed one year of service and thus there was no possibility of infringement of their retirement allowance claims, or even if the purpose of the amendment of the compensation regulations, or the inequitable results arising in relation to other employees who had already received retirement allowances under the amended compensation regulations, might be considered, none of these circumstances could have any bearing on the foregoing legal principle; and that the fact that the Plaintiffs and the labor union to which they belonged raised no objection to the amendment either at the time of the amendment of the compensation regulations or thereafter cannot, on that ground alone, be deemed to constitute the Plaintiffs' implied consent to the amendment of the compensation regulations.
Based on the foregoing, the court below held that there was no assertion or proof whatsoever by the Defendant that, in lowering the retirement allowance payment rate and thereby disadvantageously changing the working conditions of its employees as described above, the Defendant Corporation had obtained the consent of a labor union organized by a majority of the employees or the consent of a majority of the employees obtained through a meeting of the employees.
Upon examination of the record, the above factual findings and determination by the court below are found to be justified and acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was any illegality due to misapprehension of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, as argued in the grounds of appeal.
Furthermore, the determination by the court below—that it is not impermissible, in light of the doctrine of estoppel, for the Plaintiffs, who had been duly informed by the Defendant Corporation of the content of the amendment to the compensation regulations but raised no objection thereto, to now, some ten years later, contest the propriety of the amendment—is likewise found to be justified and acceptable. All of the grounds of appeal are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order, in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in the decision.
Presiding Justice Choi Jae-ho, Justice Yoon Kwan, Justice Kim Joo-han, Justice Kim Yong-jun