[Order, Appellant] ○○○ Co., Ltd. (Litigation Representative: Law Firm (Limited Liability) Taepyeongyang, Attorney Lee In-jae and 3 others)
[Defendant, Appellee] Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission
[Defendant's Intervenor] National □□ Trade Union, as Successor to the Litigation of △△ Trade Union (Litigation Representative: Attorney Baek Sin-ok)
[Court Below] Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu29966 rendered on February 4, 2015
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal, including those incurred by the intervention, shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds for appeal are examined.
1. Determination on the First Ground for Appeal
A. Article 16(1)(8) and (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Trade Union Act") permits a trade union, while it is established and continues to exist, to resolve at a general meeting to change its organizational form, with the attendance of a majority of the registered members and the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members present. This provision is intended to allow the organizational form of a trade union to be changed without undergoing the procedures of dissolution, liquidation, and establishment of a new union, thereby enabling the legal relationships surrounding the trade union, such as prior property rights and obligations or the validity of collective agreements, to 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 a trade union or choose its organizational form (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da96120 rendered on February 19, 2016).
The incorporation of an enterprise-level trade union into a lower-level organization of an industry-wide trade union, through a resolution of its general meeting, is one type of change in organizational form contemplated by the Trade Union Act. Where the organizational form is changed in this manner, the industry-wide trade union succeeds to the rights, obligations, and legal relationships of the enterprise-level trade union, absent special circumstances, and therefore it should be held that the industry-wide trade union may take over the litigation procedures that had been conducted by the enterprise-level trade union prior to the change in organizational form.
B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the following facts may be known.
(1) △△ Trade Union, which was the Intervenor for the Defendant in the first instance, submitted a report of trade union establishment to the Seoul Southern District Office of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency on July 13, 2011, and was issued a certificate of establishment report on the 18th of the same month.
(2) On December 28, 2012, △△ Trade Union held a general meeting and resolved to change its organizational form to become the △△ Branch of the Gyeonggi Chapter under the Intervenor for the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "Intervenor"), and around that time, it was incorporated into the △△ Branch of the Gyeonggi Chapter of the Intervenor.
(3) On November 10, 2014, the Intervenor filed a motion with the court below to take over the litigation procedure on the ground of the above change in organizational form. The court below recognized the Intervenor as the successor to the litigation of △△ Trade Union and proceeded with the litigation.
C. In light of the legal principles set forth 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 concerning the requirements for succession to litigation procedures.
2. Determination on the Second and Third Grounds for Appeal
The court below determined that the distribution of the leaflets at issue in this case by the non-party, who was the chairperson of △△ Trade Union, and others, constituted legitimate trade union activity, and that the Plaintiff's act of obstructing such distribution constituted an act of dominating or interfering with workers' organization or operation of a trade union, thereby constituting an unfair labor practice as defined in Article 81(4) of the Trade Union Act.
Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles, this determination by the court below is justified. There is no error in failing to exhaust the deliberation necessary for the court below's determination, in violation of the principles of logic and experience beyond the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or in misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the scope of legitimate trade union activity and the intent behind unfair labor practices.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal, including those incurred by the intervention, are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order, with the unanimous consent of the participating Justices.
Justice Park Bo-young (Presiding Justice), Park Byung-dae, Kwon Soon-il, Kim Jae-hyung (Justice in Charge)