[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee] Harim Tongsang Co., Ltd. (하림통상주식회사)
[Original Judgment] Seoul High Court Decision 90Na19925, decided October 23, 1990
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
As to the grounds of appeal
The court below found that, although Article 49 of the Defendant's collective bargaining agreement provides that where the Defendant intends to refer a member of the Defendant's labor union to disciplinary action for disciplinary dismissal, it must notify the person concerned and the union at least three days in advance, and that there was a procedural defect in that the Defendant, in referring the Plaintiff, who was a member of the Defendant's labor union, to disciplinary action, notified the person concerned and the labor union of that fact only two days before the disciplinary committee was convened; nevertheless, in light of the interpretation that the purpose of the provision in the Defendant's aforementioned collective bargaining agreement requiring advance notice of the content of the disciplinary referral to the person concerned, etc., in the disciplinary procedure, is to guarantee the person subject to discipline an opportunity to prepare and submit exculpatory materials favorable to himself in order to make a defense against the alleged disciplinary grounds, in this case where the Plaintiff himself received notice two days before the disciplinary committee was convened of the content of the disciplinary referral arising from the absence from work at issue in this case, and personally appeared before the disciplinary committee and was given an opportunity to make a defense and to state his own position, the failure to observe the aforementioned notice period cannot be used as a ground for invalidating the disciplinary resolution. This determination is acceptable as reasoning, and it cannot be found to contain the illegality alleged in point 1 of the grounds of appeal; and the findings and determinations of the court below on the other points argued are all also acceptable as correct, and it cannot be found that they contain the illegality pointed out in the grounds of appeal.
As the argument is without merit, the opinions of the participating Justices being unanimous in dismissing this appeal, it is so ordered as stated in the Order.
Justice Yoon Young-chul (Presiding Justice), Park Woo-dong, Bae Seok, Kim Sang-won