[Plaintiff, Appellee] Democratic Valeo Labor Union (Attorney Kwon Young-guk, Counsel for the Plaintiff)
[Intervenor for the Plaintiff] Korean Metal Workers' Union (Yeoneun Law Firm, Attorneys Kwon Doo-seop and 2 others, Counsel for the Intervenor)
[Defendant, Appellant] Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission
[Intervenor for the Defendant, Appellant] Valeo Electrical Systems Korea Co., Ltd. (Hanmin Law Firm, Attorney Han Chang-uk, Counsel for the Intervenor)
[Lower Court Judgment] Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu7898 dated August 22, 2013
[Order]
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Article 16, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 8 and Paragraph 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법; hereinafter referred to as the "Trade Union Act") (hereinafter referred to as "the provisions at issue"), which permit a change in the organizational form of a trade union during its existence through a resolution of the general meeting attended by a majority of the registered union members and approved by at least two-thirds of the members present, apply to trade unions established under the Trade Union Act, and thus do not apply to a mere internal organization or body of a trade union. However, even a branch, etc. of an industry-wide trade union, if it is found to constitute, contrary to its outward form, an independent trade union or an independent workers' organization similar to a trade union, and thereby an unincorporated association, may, through a resolution of an autonomous and democratic general meeting satisfying the requirements set forth in the provisions at issue, change its affiliation and convert into an independent enterprise-level trade union. However, if a branch, etc. of an industry-wide trade union is merely an internal organization for the activities of the industry-wide trade union, such a resolution cannot be permitted; therefore, it must first be carefully examined and determined whether the branch, etc. possesses the substance of an independent trade union or an independent workers' organization similar to a trade union (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da96120 dated February 19, 2016).
2. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment as upheld by the court below and the record, the following facts are known: ① the Valeo Mando Branch (hereinafter referred to as "Valeo Mando Branch") under the Gyeongju Branch of the Intervenor for the Plaintiff, which is incorporated into the Intervenor for the Plaintiff, an industry-wide trade union, held general meetings on two occasions, on May 19, 2010 and June 7, 2010, and adopted the resolutions at issue in this case, the contents of which were to change its organizational form to the enterprise-level trade union "Valeo Electrical Systems Labor Union," to enact its bylaws, and to elect its officers; ② from around April 2012, the Intervenor for the Defendant proceeded with the bargaining window unification procedure pursuant to Article 29-2 of the Trade Union Act, and on May 3, 2012, confirmed and publicly announced the Plaintiff, Valeo Electrical Systems Labor Union, and the Intervenor for the Plaintiff as the labor unions demanding bargaining, and thereafter, on the 23rd day of the same month, publicly announced that Valeo Electrical Systems Labor Union was the majority trade union; ③ in response, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Gyeongsangbuk-do Regional Labor Relations Commission asserting, among other things, the invalidity of the resolutions at issue in this case, but the objection was dismissed, and the Plaintiff then filed a request for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, which was likewise dismissed.
Examining these facts in light of the legal principles set forth above, even if Valeo Mando Branch, as a branch of the Intervenor for the Plaintiff, an industry-wide trade union, does not possess the capacity to engage in collective bargaining and to conclude collective agreements, if, in light of the circumstances of its establishment, the contents of its articles of association and bylaws, the actual state of its management and operation, and the specific content of its activities, it is recognized to possess the substance of an unincorporated association as a workers' organization similar to an enterprise-level trade union and to have had independence, it may, through a resolution changing its organizational form as prescribed by the provisions at issue, depart from its status as a branch, etc. belonging to the Intervenor for the Plaintiff and organize itself into an independent enterprise-level trade union. Therefore, the resolutions at issue in this case cannot be deemed invalid merely on the ground that they constitute such a resolution to change the organizational form.
3. Nevertheless, the court below, proceeding from the erroneous premise that a branch, etc. of an industry-wide trade union may become the subject of a change of organizational form under the provisions at issue only where it possesses independent capacity to engage in collective bargaining and to conclude collective agreements and can thus be deemed an independent trade union, without properly examining the circumstances as to whether Valeo Mando Branch possessed the substance of an unincorporated association and had independence, determined that Valeo Mando Branch could not be deemed an independent trade union possessing independent capacity to engage in collective bargaining and to conclude collective agreements, and thus could not become the subject of a change of organizational form, and on that basis concluded that the resolutions at issue in this case, which formed the basis for the establishment of Valeo Electrical Systems Labor Union, were invalid, thereby determining that Valeo Electrical Systems Labor Union could not be regarded as a trade union under Article 2, Subparagraph 4 and Article 29-2, Paragraph 3 of the Trade Union Act.
Such determination by the court below contains an error affecting the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the change of organizational form of a branch, etc. of an industry-wide trade union and by failing to conduct the necessary examination. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.
4. Accordingly, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, 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 participating Justices, as set forth in the Order.
Justice Park Bo-young (Presiding Justice), Park Byung-dae, Kim Shin, Kwon Soon-il (Justice in charge)