[Plaintiff, Appellee] Korean Metal Workers' Union, as the successor to the litigation of Samsung Labor Union (Counsel for the plaintiff: Kim Yu-jeong and 7 others, Attorneys of Law Firm Yeoneun)
[Defendant] Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission
[Intervenor for the Defendant, Appellant] Samsung C&T Corporation (trade name before change in 2014: Samsung Everland Co., Ltd.; trade name before change in 2015: Cheil Industries Inc.) (Counsel for the intervenor: Lee In-jae and 3 others, Attorneys of Law Firm (LLC) Taepyeongyang)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu18287 decided February 4, 2015
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Intervenor for the Defendant.
[Reasoning] The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding the First Ground of Appeal
A. Article 16(1)(8) and (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (노동조합 및 노동관계조정법, hereinafter the "Trade Union Act") permits a trade union, while it exists and continues, to resolve at a general meeting to change its organizational form, with the attendance of a majority of the registered union members and the consent of at least two-thirds of the union members in attendance. This provision allows a trade union to change its organizational form without undergoing the procedures for dissolution, liquidation, and re-establishment, so that the legal relationships surrounding the trade union—such as previous property rights and obligations or the effect of collective agreements—may be maintained and succeeded to by the trade union in its new organizational form as they are; this is intended to substantially support workers' freedom to establish trade unions or to choose their organizational form (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da96120 decided February 19, 2016, etc.).
Where a single (enterprise-level) trade union, through a resolution of its general meeting, is incorporated as a subordinate organization of an industry-level trade union, this constitutes one type of change of organizational form contemplated by the Trade Union Act. Where the organizational form has been changed in this manner, the industry-level trade union succeeds to the rights, obligations, and legal relationships of the single trade union, barring special circumstances, and therefore it should be held that the industry-level trade union may take over the litigation proceedings that had been conducted by the single trade union prior to the change of organizational form.
B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the following facts can be known.
(1) Samsung Labor Union, the plaintiff in the first instance, submitted a report of establishment of a trade union to the Seoul Nambu District Office of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency on July 13, 2011, and was issued a certificate of establishment on the 18th of the same month.
(2) On December 28, 2012, Samsung Labor Union held a general meeting and resolved to change its organizational form to become the Samsung Chapter of the Gyeonggi Branch under the Plaintiff, and around that time it was incorporated into the Plaintiff's Gyeonggi Branch, Samsung Chapter.
(3) On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff applied to the court below to take over the litigation proceedings on the ground of the above change of organizational form. The court below recognized the Plaintiff as the successor to the litigation of Samsung Labor Union and proceeded with the litigation.
C. In light of the legal principles set out above, the court below's recognition of the succession to the litigation is justified, and there is no error in its understanding of the legal principles regarding the requirements for succession to litigation proceedings.
2. Regarding the Second and Third Grounds of Appeal
The court below determined that the acts of distributing the leaflets at issue in this case, committed by the non-party, the chairperson of Samsung Labor Union, and others, constituted legitimate trade union activities, and that the act of the Intervenor for the Defendant in obstructing such activities constituted an act of domination over or interference with workers' organization or operation of a trade union, and thus constituted an unfair labor practice as defined in Article 81(4) of the Trade Union Act.
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination of the court below is justified. There is no error affecting the judgment, such as failing to exhaust the deliberation necessary for the court below's determination, exceeding the limits of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the rules of logic and experience, or misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the scope of legitimate trade union activities and the intent to commit an unfair labor practice.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This Decision is rendered with the unanimous consent of the participating Justices as set forth in the Order.
Justice Park Bo-yeong (Presiding Justice), Justice Park Byung-dae, Justice Kwon Soon-il, Justice Kim Jae-hyung (Justice in charge)