[Plaintiffs, Appellants]
[Defendant, Appellee] Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission (중앙노동위원회 위원장)
[Defendant's Intervenor] Dong-A Construction Industry Co., Ltd. (동아건설산업 주식회사) (Attorney Lee Bong-gu, counsel for the defendant's intervenor)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Judgment 95Gu19784, dated May 9, 1996
[Order]
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.
[Reasoning]
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In order for a so-called restructuring dismissal (integral personnel reduction dismissal, 정리해고), whereby an enterprise dismisses employees due to business necessity, to be deemed justified, all relevant circumstances must be comprehensively considered as a whole—including whether there was an urgent business necessity, whether the employer made reasonable efforts to avoid dismissal, whether the persons to be dismissed were selected according to objective and reasonable standards, and whether there was sincere consultation with the labor union or the employees—such that the dismissal in question can be recognized as having objective reasonableness and social propriety. Here, "urgent business necessity" is not necessarily limited to circumstances aimed at avoiding the bankruptcy of the enterprise; where a reduction in personnel is objectively recognized as reasonable, it should be regarded as constituting urgent business necessity (see Supreme Court Judgment 94Da52119, dated December 22, 1995; Supreme Court Judgment 94Nu15783, dated December 5, 1995, among others).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, upon comprehensive consideration of the evidence it adopted, found as follows: the Defendant's Intervenor (hereinafter "the Intervenor Company") is a company that employs approximately 6,000 employees and engages in construction and other businesses; the Plaintiffs joined the Intervenor Company as employees between May 1, 1975 and October 8, 1988, and worked as heavy equipment operators or maintenance personnel at the Equipment Business Office (장비사업소) within the Intervenor Company, which operates a heavy equipment leasing business, among other things; the Equipment Business Office was operated as an independently accounted business office directly under the president of the Intervenor Company, and its employees, being heavy equipment operators or maintenance personnel as noted above, had no personnel exchange whatsoever with departments in other business lines within the Intervenor Company; due to structural causes in the heavy equipment leasing market industry since the mid-1980s, the volume of business at the Equipment Business Office decreased, resulting in deficits of approximately 2.2 billion won each in 1990 and 1991, approximately 3.3 billion won in 1992, approximately 3.9 billion won in 1993, and approximately 4.1 billion won in 1994; the Equipment Business Office began downsizing its organization from 1990, and thereafter suspended new hiring of employees (with the sole exception of one person protected under employment priority who was newly hired around April 1993 pursuant to an employment order from the Administrator of the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs); with respect to surplus personnel arising from the decrease in business volume, the Office placed such employees on standby at the workplace or at home while continuing to pay their wages, and subsequently attempted personnel reductions, recruiting voluntary retirees on January 18, 1993, resulting in the honorable retirement of 110 persons; nevertheless, as the deficit continued to expand with no prospect of improvement, the Intervenor Company decided to convert the business line of the Equipment Business Office to an environmental business manufacturing and selling wheel-washing machines (세륜기) for vehicles entering and exiting construction sites, and around the end of 1994 decided to provide job-conversion training to employees belonging to the Equipment Business Office and to convert and reassign their job classifications, while again recruiting voluntary retirees, resulting in the honorable retirement of 20 persons on December 2, 1994; when the Intervenor established a concrete plan to conduct training for job conversion to technical positions and skill improvement for employees belonging to the Equipment Business Office from December 1, 1994 to May 31, 1995, the Equipment Business Office branch of the labor union of the Intervenor Company demanded that additional voluntary retirees be recruited and that a labor-management council meeting be held for the purpose of restructuring dismissal, on the ground that, since most of the employees concerned were elderly, job conversion through training was not desirable; accordingly, following six labor-management council meetings held from January 26, 1995 to February 16, 1995, it was agreed that all voluntary retirees would be accepted, that the number of surplus personnel by job classification would be fixed at a total of 124 persons by labor-management agreement, that where the number of voluntary retirees in each job classification fell short of the fixed surplus personnel number, employees would be selected for restructuring dismissal in order of shortest length of service, and that a substantial amount of retirement allowance would be paid to voluntary retirees and those subject to restructuring dismissal; and that on February 28, 1995, excluding the 112 voluntary retirees, the Intervenor Company dismissed 10 persons, including the Plaintiffs, pursuant to the above restructuring criteria, as a restructuring dismissal. The court below then determined that, in light of the Intervenor Company's urgent business necessity, its efforts to avoid dismissal, the reasonableness of the restructuring criteria, and its sincere consultation with the employees' side, when all such circumstances were comprehensively considered as a whole, the restructuring dismissal at issue in this case possessed objective reasonableness and social propriety and was therefore justified.
Upon examination of the record, the fact-finding and determination of the court below are correct, and there is no illegality therein such as a mistake of fact or a misapprehension of the legal principles concerning restructuring dismissal as argued in the grounds of appeal; the Supreme Court judgments or decisions cited in the grounds of appeal are not appropriate to be invoked in this case.
Furthermore, in light of the purpose of the labor-management council system—namely, to promote industrial peace and contribute to the development of the national economy by having both employees and employers enhance their mutual interests through understanding and cooperation—as well as the provisions of Article 20 of the Act on Labor-Management Council (노사협의회법) concerning matters for consultation by the labor-management council, it cannot be said that matters concerning restructuring dismissal may not be a subject of consultation by the labor-management council.
None of the grounds of appeal can be accepted.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are to be borne by the losing parties. This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Presiding Justice Ji Chang-gwon, Justice Cheon Gyeong-song, Justice Shin Seong-taek, Justice Song Jin-hun (Presiding/Reporting Justice)