Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 99두6927 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/655 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 99두6927

Revocation of Reexamination Decision on Unfair Dismissal Remedy (부당해고구제재심판정취소)부당해고구제재심판정취소

Decided1999. 12. 10. Court대법원Worker won
한국어·Print
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

The Supreme Court of Korea ruled that general (office-track) employees who are not union members can still be considered 'employees of the same kind' (동종의 근로자) alongside technical-track union members under a collective bargaining agreement (단체협약). Since union members constituted a majority of the workforce, the collective agreement's provisions applied even to these non-union general employees. The Court held that when a collective agreement's coverage is not limited by job category and applies broadly across all job types, all employees at the workplace—regardless of their specific job classification—are treated as the same kind of employee.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA general (office-track) employee who was not a union member disputed whether he could receive the same protections as technical-track union members under the company's collective bargaining agreement (단체협약).
  • OutcomeThe Court ruled that when a collective agreement applies uniformly to all job categories without distinction, both general and technical employees are considered 'employees of the same kind,' so the agreement's benefits also extend to non-union employees.
  • LessonEmployers and unions should clearly define the scope of coverage when drafting collective bargaining agreements, and non-union employees should be aware they may still benefit from such agreements if union members make up more than half of the workforce.
Issues
  • The meaning and scope of 'employees of the same kind' under Article 35 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (노동조합및노동관계조정법)
  • Whether a collective bargaining agreement open to employees regardless of job category also applies to non-union general (office-track) employees
Key reasoning

Under Article 35 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (노동조합및노동관계조정법), when more than half of the employees of the same kind at a workplace are covered by a collective agreement, that agreement extends to other employees of the same kind who are not union members. The Court reasoned that if a collective agreement does not restrict its scope to a specific job category but instead applies uniformly across all types of jobs, then all employees—whether technical-track or general/office-track—must be considered 'employees of the same kind.' Because the union members (technical-track employees) made up a majority of the workforce, the collective agreement's protections, including provisions relevant to dismissal, extended automatically to non-union general employees as well.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] The term "employees of the same kind" who become subject to the application of a collective agreement pursuant to Article 35 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (노동조합및노동관계조정법) refers to those persons for whom application of the relevant collective agreement is anticipated under the provisions of that agreement. Where the scope of application of a collective agreement concluded at the workplace level is not specified, or where the provisions of the agreement apply commonly across all job categories, all employees within the workplace, without distinction as to job category, constitute employees of the same kind.

[2] Where, unless a person falls under the category of "employer" under the provisions of the collective agreement, all employees within the workplace, regardless of job category such as technical staff or general staff, are entitled to join the labor union as members and thereby become subject to the collective agreement, then general staff employees, together with technical staff employees, constitute "employees of the same kind" as referred to in Article 35 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. Accordingly, so long as the number of union members constituted a majority of the employees regularly employed, the collective agreement applies to general staff employees as well, regardless of whether they actually joined the labor union.

Full text (English, AI translation) 4,508 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellee] Plaintiff
[Defendant, Appellant] Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission
[Intervenor for the Defendant, Appellant] LG Cable Co., Ltd. (Attorney Ju Wan, Counsel for the Intervenor)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Judgment 98Nu14183, decided May 27, 1999

[Order]

Each appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are to be borne by each of the appellants.

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal of the Defendant and the Intervenor for the Defendant are examined together.

Regarding the application of the collective agreement

Under Article 35 of the Act on the Organization and Adjustment of Labor Relations (노동조합및노동관계조정법), "employees of the same kind" who are subject to the application of a collective agreement refers to those persons who are expected to be covered by the collective agreement pursuant to the provisions of that agreement. Where the scope of application of a collective agreement concluded at the workplace level is not specifically defined, or where the provisions of the agreement apply commonly across all job categories, all employees within the workplace, regardless of job category, fall under "employees of the same kind" (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13189, decided December 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 95Da4056, decided April 25, 1997, etc.).

The court below determined that, unless a person falls under the definition of "employer" under the provisions of the collective agreement in this case, all employees within the workplace, regardless of job category such as technical staff or general staff, are entitled to join the labor union as members and be covered by the collective agreement; therefore, general staff employees such as the Plaintiff, together with technical staff employees, fall under "employees of the same kind" as referred to in the above statutory provision, and since the number of union members constituted a majority of the regularly employed employees, the provisions of the collective agreement concerning dismissal procedures apply to the Plaintiff as well, regardless of whether the Plaintiff actually joined the labor union.

Upon examination of the record in light of the above legal principles, the fact-finding and determination of the court below as described above are justified, and there is no illegality therein, such as an omission of judgment on the arguments of the Defendant and the Intervenor for the Defendant, or a misapprehension of the law.

The argument in this part of the grounds of appeal is not accepted.

Regarding the reexamination procedure

According to the record, the proviso to Article 31, Paragraph 2 of the collective agreement of the Intervenor company provides that a union member who has an objection to a disciplinary matter may request reexamination within five days, and that the company shall respond to such reexamination without delay; and it can be seen that, with respect to disciplinary procedures in general, Articles 22 and 23 of the Employee Disciplinary Regulations provide that an employee who has an objection to a disciplinary matter shall file an objection in writing specifying the grounds, thereby requesting reexamination. Accordingly, the fact that the Plaintiff, having received a disciplinary disposition of recommended resignation on February 3, 1998, submitted a written objection thereto on February 6 of the same month must be regarded as a lawful request for reexamination in accordance with the Employee Disciplinary Regulations.

Furthermore, even though the Plaintiff was given an opportunity to state his case before the disciplinary committee but failed to appear, and only raised, in the course of this lawsuit, the argument that the Intervenor company had violated the law by failing to go through the reexamination procedure, such circumstances alone cannot be deemed to render the Plaintiff's argument contrary to the principle of good faith.

The judgment of the court below, which is to the same effect, is justified, and there is no illegality therein, such as a misapprehension of the facts in violation of the rules of evidence.

The argument in this part of the grounds of appeal is likewise not accepted.

Conclusion

Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are to be borne by each of the appellants. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order, the opinions of the participating Justices being unanimous.

Justice Kim Hyung-sun (Presiding Justice), Lee Yong-hoon, Cho Mu-je (Justice in Charge), Lee Yong-woo

【판결요지】

[1] 노동조합및노동관계조정법 제35조의 규정에 따라 단체협약의 적용을 받게 되는 '동종의 근로자'라 함은 당해 단체협약의 규정에 의하여 그 협약의 적용이 예상되는 자를 가리키는바, 사업장 단위로 체결되는 단체협약의 적용 범위가 특정되지 않았거나 협약 조항이 모든 직종에 걸쳐서 공통적으로 적용되는 경우에는 직종의 구분 없이 사업장 내의 모든 근로자가 동종의 근로자에 해당된다.

[2] 단체협약 규정상 사용자에 해당하지 않는 한 기능직·일반직 등 직종의 구분 없이 사업장 내의 모든 근로자가 노동조합의 조합원으로 가입하여 단체협약의 적용을 받을 수 있도록 되어 있다면 일반직 근로자도 기능직 근로자와 함께 노동조합및노동관계조정법 제35조에서 말하는 '동종의 근로자'에 해당한다고 할 것이고, 조합원수가 상시 사용되는 근로자 과반수에 해당하였던 이상, 실제로 노동조합에 가입한 여부에 관계없이 일반직 근로자에 대하여도 단체협약이 적용된다.

【참조조문】

[1] 노동조합및노동관계조정법 제35조

[2] 노동조합및노동관계조정법 제35조

【참조판례】

[1][2] 대법원 1992. 12. 22. 선고 92누13189 판결(공1993상, 625), 대법원 1995. 12. 22. 선고 95다39618 판결(공1996상, 505), 대법원 1997. 4. 25. 선고 95다4056 판결(공1997상, 1555), 대법원 1997. 10. 28. 선고 96다13415 판결(공1997하, 3620)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,546자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 피상고인】 원고

【피고, 상고인】 중앙노동위원회위원장

【피고보조참가인, 상고인】 엘지전선 주식회사 (소송대리인 변호사 주완)

【원심판결】 서울고법 1999. 5. 27. 선고 98누14183 판결

【주 문】

각 상고를 기각한다.

상고비용을 상고인 각자의 부담으로 한다.

【이 유】 피고와 피고보조참가인의 상고이유를 함께 판단한다.

단체협약의 적용에 관하여

노동조합및노동관계조정법 제35조의 규정에 따라 단체협약의 적용을 받게 되는 '동종의 근로자'라 함은 당해 단체협약의 규정에 의하여 그 협약의 적용이 예상되는 자를 가리키는바, 사업장 단위로 체결되는 단체협약의 적용 범위가 특정되지 않았거나 협약 조항이 모든 직종에 걸쳐서 공통적으로 적용되는 경우에는 직종의 구분 없이 사업장 내의 모든 근로자가 동종의 근로자에 해당된다(대법원 1992. 12. 22. 선고 92누13189 판결, 1997. 4. 25. 선고 95다4056 판결 등 참조).

원심은, 이 사건 단체협약 규정상 사용자에 해당하지 않는 한, 기능직·일반직 등 직종의 구분 없이 사업장 내의 모든 근로자가 노동조합의 조합원으로 가입하여 단체협약의 적용을 받을 수 있도록 되어 있으므로, 원고와 같은 일반직 근로자도 기능직 근로자와 함께 위 법조항에서 말하는 동종의 근로자에 해당한다고 할 것이고, 조합원수가 상시 사용되는 근로자 과반수에 해당하였던 이상, 실제로 노동조합에 가입한 여부에 관계없이 원고에 대하여도 단체협약의 해고절차에 관한 조항이 적용된다고 판단하였다.

기록과 위의 법리에 비추어 보니, 원심의 위와 같은 사실인정과 판단은 정당하고, 거기에 피고와 피고보조참가인의 주장에 대한 판단을 유탈하였거나 법리를 오해하는 등의 위법은 없다.

이 부분 상고이유의 주장을 받아들이지 아니한다.

재심절차에 관하여

기록에 따르니, 참가인 회사의 단체협약 제31조 단서 제2항은 징계사항에 대하여 이의가 있는 당해 조합원은 5일 이내에 재심을 청구할 수 있고, 회사는 지체 없이 재심에 응하여야 한다고 규정하고 있으며, 징계절차의 일반에 관하여는 사원징계규정 제22조 및 제23조에서 징계사항에 대하여 이의가 있는 사원은 서면으로 명시하여 이의신청을 함으로써 재심청구를 하도록 규정하고 있음을 알 수 있으니, 원고가 1998. 2. 3. 권고사직의 징계처분을 받고 이에 대한 이의신청서를 같은 달 6. 제출한 것은 그 사원징계 규정에 따른 적법한 재심청구라고 보아야 할 것이다.

그리고, 원고가 징계위원회에서 소명할 기회를 얻었음에도 이에 출석하지 아니하다가 이 사건 소송에 이르러서야 그 재심절차를 거치지 아니한 참가인 회사의 위법을 주장하였다 하더라도 그러한 사정만으로는 원고의 그 주장이 신의칙에 반한다고 볼 수도 없다.

같은 취지의 원심판결은 정당하고, 거기에 채증법칙에 위배한 사실오인 등의 위법이 없다.

이 부분 상고이유의 주장도 받아들이지 아니한다.

결 론

그러므로 각 상고를 기각하고, 상고비용을 상고인 각자의 부담으로 하기로 관여 대법관들의 의견이 일치되어 주문에 쓴 바와 같이 판결한다.

대법관 김형선(재판장) 이용훈 조무제(주심) 이용우

Related statutes

노동조합및노동관계조정법 제35조

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
2001다5142 · 대법원 2004-01-29
출입금지
#2
2013두3351 · 대법원 2015-05-28
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Unfair Dismissal Remedy
#3
2020다278064 · 대법원 2022-03-31
Wages
#4
95누3565 · 대법원 1995-12-22
Revocation of Reconsidered Decision on Remedy for Unfair Lab
#5
97누3644 · 대법원 1997-09-05
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Unfair Labor Practice Reme

Cases citing this decision

2001다63599 · 대법원 2004-02-12
Wages Dispute (임금)
2001다5142 · 대법원 2004-01-29
출입금지
2001다6800 · 대법원 2004-01-29
Action to Confirm Invalidity of Dismissal, etc.
2001두10264 · 대법원 2003-12-26
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Unfair Dismissal and Unfai
2001나5498 · 창원지법 2002-08-22
Wages

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

File a complaintlogin requiredCalculatorsFind more cases

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)