[Defendant]
[Appellant] Public Prosecutor and Defendant
[Defense Counsel] Law Firm Simin, Attorneys Kang Ki-tak and 4 others
[Lower Court Decision] Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005No2408, decided October 12, 2005
[Order]
All appeals are dismissed.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Public Prosecutor's Grounds of Appeal
Article 7(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법) provides that "no entity other than a trade union established pursuant to this Act may file an application with the Labor Relations Commission for mediation of labor disputes or remedy for unfair labor practices." Under this provision, the trade union entitled to file an application for mediation of labor disputes, etc. with the Labor Relations Commission refers only to a trade union that has completed the establishment report under Article 10 of the same Act, as an organization or federation of organizations formed autonomously by workers as the principal actors for the purpose of maintaining and improving working conditions or otherwise enhancing the economic and social status of workers (see Article 2(4) of the same Act).
The lower court found the defendants not guilty as to the part of the charge alleging that the defendants engaged in industrial action without going through the mediation procedure of the Labor Relations Commission, on the ground that the Seoul National University Hospital Branch of the Korean Health and Medical Workers' Union (hereinafter "Health and Medical Workers' Union") had not filed a report of establishment as a trade union and therefore could not have filed an application for mediation of a labor dispute with the Labor Relations Commission. In light of the legal principles set out above and the record, this determination by the lower court is correct, and it cannot be said that there was any error of law in misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 7(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor's ground of appeal cannot be accepted.
2. As to the Defendants' Grounds of Appeal
A. As to Ground of Appeal No. 1
Examining the evidence adopted by the lower court in light of the record, the lower court's finding that Chapter 10, Article 2 of the collective agreement concluded on June 23, 2004 between the Health and Medical Workers' Union and the employers concerned in the health and medical industry provided that the agreed contents regarding wages, reduction of working hours, annual/monthly leave and annual leave allowance, and menstrual leave shall have effect in priority over branch-level collective agreements and employment rules, and that the defendants asserted the invalidity of the said collective agreement on the ground that they could not accept it, is justified. There is no error of misapprehension of fact due to violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, this part of the defendants' grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
B. As to Ground of Appeal No. 2
The lower court, upon finding the facts as stated in its holding based on the adopted evidence, determined that even if there had been a strike vote at the level of the Health and Medical Workers' Union as a whole, such vote could not also be regarded as serving as a strike vote in response to the refusal of collective bargaining at each individual branch level, and that once the collective agreement at the level of the Health and Medical Workers' Union had been concluded and the industrial action had thereby ended, a separate strike vote at the branch level was required to be held after negotiations with the employer on the specific demands at the branch level were conducted and such negotiations were rejected or broke down. Examining the record, the lower court's fact-finding and determination as above are justified and acceptable, and there is no error of law in misapprehending the legal principles concerning Article 41(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, or any error of misapprehension of fact due to violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation. Therefore, this part of the defendants' grounds of appeal likewise cannot be accepted.
C. As to Ground of Appeal No. 3
Article 41(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which requires that workers, in engaging in industrial action, go through the procedure of a resolution of approval by direct, secret, and unsigned voting of the union members, is a provision established in order to promote the autonomous and democratic operation of the trade union and, at the same time, to ensure greater prudence in the union's decision-making on the commencement of industrial action so that workers who participate in the industrial action are not subsequently subjected to any disadvantage in relation to the legitimacy of the industrial action. Therefore, industrial action conducted in violation of this procedure loses its legitimacy unless objective circumstances are recognized that made it impossible to comply with the procedure (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 99Do4837, decided October 25, 2001).
Meanwhile, Article 29(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that the authority to conclude a collective agreement rests with the representative of the trade union, and a trade union bears what is called the duty of peace, under which it must refrain from engaging in industrial action demanding the alteration or abolition of the contents of working conditions, etc. prescribed in the collective agreement during the term of validity of the collective agreement. In light of the fact that such duty of peace is intended to secure the stability of labor-management relations and the order-forming function of the collective agreement, where union members engage in industrial action immediately after the conclusion of a collective agreement, asserting the invalidation of the said collective agreement solely on the ground that it is disadvantageous to them, such industrial action cannot be said to have legitimacy.
The lower court, based on the adopted evidence, found the fact that the chairperson of the Health and Medical Workers' Union and the representatives of the employers concerned in the health and medical industry agreed to and signed the contents of the labor-management agreement on June 23, 2004, but the defendants, without going through a strike vote and in violation of the duty of peace, asserted the invalidation of the said labor-management agreement and, together with other members of the Seoul National University Hospital Branch of the Health and Medical Workers' Union, collectively refused to work. Based on this, the lower court determined that the defendants' said industrial action constituted the crime of obstruction of business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Code (형법). In light of the legal principles set out above and the record, the lower court's fact-finding and determination as above are justified and acceptable, and there is no error of law in misapprehending the legal principles concerning the legitimacy of industrial action, or any error of misapprehension of fact due to violation of the rules of evidence. Therefore, this part of the defendants' grounds of appeal likewise cannot be accepted.
3. Conclusion
Accordingly, all appeals are dismissed, and this Judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justice Park Il-hwan (Presiding Justice), Kim Yong-dam (Justice in Charge), Park Si-hwan, Kim Neung-hwan