Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 96누6431 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/828 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 96누6431

Revocation of Dismissal of Retrial Application for Remedy Against Unfair Labor Practice (부당노동행위구제재심신청기각판정취소)부당노동행위구제재심신청기각판정취소

Decided1997. 07. 08. Court대법원Employer 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.

A bus company driver who embezzled 5,000 KRW (about $4) was disciplinarily dismissed, and he claimed this was an unfair labor practice (부당노동행위) motivated by his union activities. The Supreme Court held that since there was a legitimate cause for dismissal (embezzlement), the termination did not constitute an unfair labor practice, even considering his union involvement.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA bus company driver was disciplinarily dismissed for embezzling 5,000 KRW and claimed the dismissal was an unfair labor practice motivated by his union activities.
  • OutcomeThe Court ruled that even if the employer held anti-union sentiment, the dismissal was not an unfair labor practice because there was a legitimate cause—embezzlement.
  • LessonEngaging in union activities does not grant immunity from all disciplinary action; employers may lawfully discipline employees for clear misconduct.
Issues
  • Whether a dismissal with a legitimate disciplinary cause can still constitute an unfair labor practice
  • Whether procedural defects in the disciplinary process affect the determination of an unfair labor practice
Key reasoning

Even if the employer is presumed to harbor anti-union sentiment, a dismissal does not qualify as an unfair labor practice if there is a legitimate and independent cause for disciplinary action, such as embezzlement. The existence of a valid ground for termination outweighs any inference of anti-union motive. Additionally, the Court held that procedural defects in the disciplinary process (e.g., irregularities in the disciplinary hearing procedure) do not affect the determination of whether an unfair labor practice occurred; that is a separate legal issue from the validity of the disciplinary action itself.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] Where it is recognized that an employer, despite formally invoking a stated ground for dismissal, has in substance dismissed an employee because of the employee's legitimate trade union activities, such dismissal must be regarded as an unfair labor practice. Whether the employee's legitimate acts performed for trade union affairs constituted the substantial ground for dismissal must be determined by comparatively examining and weighing the ground for dismissal asserted by the employer, the content of the legitimate acts performed by the employee for trade union affairs, the timing of the dismissal, the relationship between the employer and the trade union, whether there is an imbalance in sanctions imposed on union members as compared to non-union members in similar cases, whether the dismissal accords with past practice, the employer's words and attitude toward union members, and other circumstances from which the existence of an intent to commit an unfair labor practice may be inferred. However, where a dismissal is carried out on a legitimate ground for dismissal, even if there are traces suggesting that the employer viewed the employee's trade union activities with displeasure, or even if an anti-union intent on the part of the employer may be inferred, the ground for dismissal in question cannot be deemed to be merely a pretext on its face, and therefore such dismissal cannot be held to constitute an unfair labor practice.

[2] Insofar as the employer did not dismiss the employee out of aversion to the employee's legitimate trade union activities, the fact that the composition of the disciplinary committee or the disciplinary procedure was unlawful cannot affect the determination of whether the dismissal in question constitutes an unfair labor practice.

Full text (English, AI translation) 5,600 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellant]

[Defendant, Appellee] Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission
[Intervenor for the Defendant] Pungnam Passenger Automobile Co., Ltd.

[Judgment Below]

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu32193, decided April 4, 1996

[Order]

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

[Reasoning]

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Where it is recognized that an employer, in dismissing an employee, has in reality dismissed the employee on account of the employee's legitimate labor union activities, notwithstanding the ostensible grounds for dismissal put forward by the employer, such dismissal must be regarded as an unfair labor practice. Whether an employee's legitimate act performed for labor union business constitutes the substantive ground for dismissal must be determined by comparatively examining and weighing such factors as the grounds for dismissal asserted by the employer, the content of the legitimate act performed by the employee for labor union business, the timing of the dismissal, the relationship between the employer and the labor union, whether there is an imbalance in sanctions imposed on union members as compared with non-union members in similar cases, whether the dismissal conforms to past practice, the employer's words and conduct or attitude toward union members, and other circumstances from which the existence of an intent to commit an unfair labor practice may be inferred (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3001, decided December 23, 1994). However, where a dismissal is made on legitimate grounds, even if there are traces suggesting that the employer viewed the employee's labor union activities with displeasure, or even if an anti-union intent on the part of the employer may be inferred, the ground for dismissal in question cannot be considered a mere pretext, and thus it cannot be held to constitute an unfair labor practice (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu587, decided July 30, 1996).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts: the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor for the Defendant (hereinafter "the Intervenor"), a city bus company located in Jeonju-si, as a bus driver on May 1, 1992, and worked there; around June 1992, the Plaintiff joined, as a union member, the labor union that was organized at that time; around September 25, 1993, without any resolution, lawful authorization, or approval of the labor union, the Plaintiff conducted a survey among union members concerning the fact that the Intervenor did not observe the working hours and working days specified in the collective agreement, such that the number of working hours was greater than at other companies; the Intervenor, in order to prevent embezzlement of fare revenue by its drivers, had trained its drivers to give change to passengers who paid the fare in cash with bills of KRW 5,000 or more, or, if that was not possible, to allow such passengers to ride free of charge; nevertheless, on October 2, 1993, while operating a city bus, the Plaintiff received a KRW 5,000 bill from a passenger as fare, gave the passenger change, but then, instead of putting the KRW 5,000 bill into the fare collection box, put it into his own pocket, thereby embezzling it (as a result, the Plaintiff was sentenced by the Jeonju District Court to a fine of KRW 100,000 for the crime of occupational embezzlement, and although he appealed and further appealed to the Supreme Court, the sentence became final and conclusive upon dismissal of his appeal by the Supreme Court); and thereupon, on October 30, 1993, the Intervenor, following a resolution of its disciplinary committee, dismissed the Plaintiff as a disciplinary measure pursuant to Article 35, Item 1 of the collective agreement, which provides that a person "against whom there is clear evidence of having embezzled company property or unlawfully appropriated fare revenue" may be dismissed. Based on these findings, the court below determined that the disciplinary dismissal of the Plaintiff in this case had legitimate grounds, and that there was no evidence that the Intervenor fabricated false facts in order to obstruct the Plaintiff's labor union activities and thereby carried out the disciplinary dismissal in this case; accordingly, the court below determined that the disciplinary dismissal of the Plaintiff in this case did not constitute an unfair labor practice.

Upon examination of the record in light of the legal principles set forth above, the fact-finding and determination of the court below as described above are acceptable, and there is no illegality therein, such as a mistake of fact due to violation of the rules of evidence or a misapprehension of the legal principles concerning unfair labor practices, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Furthermore, insofar as the Intervenor did not dismiss the Plaintiff out of hostility toward the Plaintiff's legitimate labor union activities, the argument that the composition of the disciplinary committee or the disciplinary procedure in this dismissal was unlawful cannot have any bearing on whether this dismissal constitutes an unfair labor practice, and therefore the ground of appeal in this regard is without merit on its face.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order, by the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in the decision.

Justice Lee Don-hui (Presiding Justice), Choi Jong-yeong (Justice in charge), Jeong Gwi-ho, Lim Su

【판결요지】

[1] 사용자가 근로자를 해고함에 있어서 표면적으로 내세우는 해고사유와는 달리 실질적으로는 근로자의 정당한 노동조합 활동을 이유로 해고한 것으로 인정되는 경우에 있어서는 그 해고는 부당노동행위라고 보아야 할 것이고, 근로자의 노동조합 업무를 위한 정당한 행위를 실질적인 해고사유로 한 것인지의 여부는 사용자측이 내세우는 해고사유와 근로자가 한 노동조합 업무를 위한 정당한 행위의 내용, 해고를 한 시기, 사용자와 노동조합과의 관계, 동종의 사례에 있어서 조합원과 비조합원에 대한 제재의 불균형 여부, 종래의 관행에 부합 여부, 사용자의 조합원에 대한 언동이나 태도, 기타 부당노동행위 의사의 존재를 추정할 수 있는 제반 사정 등을 비교 검토하여 판단하여야 할 것이나, 정당한 해고사유가 있어 해고한 경우에 있어서는 비록 사용자가 근로자의 노동조합 활동을 못마땅하게 여긴 흔적이 있다거나 사용자에게 반노동조합의사가 추정된다고 하더라도 당해 해고사유가 단순히 표면상의 구실에 불과하다고 할 수는 없을 것이므로 부당노동행위에 해당한다고 할 수 없다.

[2] 사용자가 근로자의 정당한 노동조합 활동을 혐오하여 근로자를 해고한 것이 아닌 이상, 징계위원회의 구성이나 징계절차가 위법하다는 사유는 당해 해고가 부당노동행위에 해당하는지의 여부에는 영향을 미칠 수 없다.

【참조조문】

[1] 구 근로기준법(1996. 12. 31. 법률 제5245호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제27조 제1항( 현행 제30조 제1항 참조) , 구 노동조합법(1996. 12. 31. 법률 제5244호 부칙 제3조로 폐지) 제39조 제1호( 현행 노동조합및노동관계조정법 제81조 제1호 참조)

[2] 구 근로기준법(1996. 12. 31. 법률 제5245호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제27조 제1항( 현행 제30조 제1항 참조) , 구 노동조합법(1996. 12. 31. 법률 제5244호 부칙 제3조로 폐지) 제39조 제1호( 현행 노동조합및노동관계조정법 제81조 제1호 참조)

【참조판례】

[1] 대법원 1994. 12. 23. 선고 94누3001 판결(공1995상, 691), 대법원 1996. 4. 23. 선고 95누6151 판결(공1996상, 1609), 대법원 1996. 5. 31. 선고 95누2487 판결(공1996하, 2039), 대법원 1996. 7. 30. 선고 96누587 판결(공1996하, 2703), 대법원 1997. 3. 28. 선고 96누4220 판결(공1997상, 1251)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 2,040자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고,상고인】

【피고,피상고인】 중앙노동위원회 위원장

【피고보조참가인】 풍남여객자동차 주식회사

【원심판결】 서울고법 1996. 4. 4. 선고 94구32193 판결

【주문】

상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고의 부담으로 한다.

【이유】 상고이유를 본다.

사용자가 근로자를 해고함에 있어서 표면적으로 내세우는 해고사유와는 달리 실질적으로는 근로자의 정당한 노동조합 활동을 이유로 해고한 것으로 인정되는 경우에 있어서는 그 해고는 부당노동행위라고 보아야 할 것이고, 근로자의 노동조합 업무를 위한 정당한 행위를 실질적인 해고사유로 한 것인지의 여부는 사용자측이 내세우는 해고사유와 근로자가 한 노동조합 업무를 위한 정당한 행위의 내용, 해고를 한 시기, 사용자와 노동조합과의 관계, 동종의 사례에 있어서 조합원과 비조합원에 대한 제재의 불균형 여부, 종래의 관행에 부합 여부, 사용자의 조합원에 대한 언동이나 태도, 기타 부당노동행위 의사의 존재를 추정할 수 있는 제반 사정 등을 비교 검토하여 판단하여야 할 것이나( 대법원 1994. 12. 23. 선고 94누3001 판결 참조), 정당한 해고사유가 있어 해고한 경우에 있어서는 비록 사용자가 근로자의 노동조합 활동을 못마땅하게 여긴 흔적이 있다거나 사용자에게 반노동조합의사가 추정된다고 하더라도 당해 해고사유가 단순히 표면상의 구실에 불과하다고 할 수는 없을 것이므로 부당노동행위에 해당한다고 할 수 없다 ( 대법원 1996. 7. 30. 선고 96누587 판결 참조).

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 원고는 1992. 5. 1. 전주시 소재 시내버스 회사인 피고보조참가인(이하 참가인이라 한다)의 운전기사로 입사하여 근무하다가 1992. 6.경 조직된 노동조합에 조합원으로 가입한 사실, 원고는 1993. 9. 25.경 노동조합의 의사결정이나 적법한 수권 또는 승인 없이 참가인이 단체협약에 명시된 근로시간 및 근로일수를 지키지 아니하여 다른 회사보다는 근로시간수가 더 많다는 점에 대하여 노동조합원들에게 설문조사를 실시한 사실, 참가인은 소속 운전기사의 운송수입금 횡령을 방지하기 위하여 운전기사들에게 5,000원 이상의 고액권으로 현금승차하려는 승객에 대하여는 잔돈으로 바꾸어서 승차하게 하거나 그것이 불가능하면 무임승차시키도록 교육까지 시켜왔음에도, 원고는 1993. 10. 2. 시내버스 운행 도중 승객으로부터 승차요금으로 5,000원권을 받고 거스름돈을 내어준 후 위 돈 5,000원을 승차권 회수함에 넣지 아니하고 주머니에 넣어 이를 횡령한 사실(이로 인하여 원고는 전주지방법원에서 업무상횡령죄로 벌금 100,000원의 형을 선고받고, 이에 불복하여 항소 및 상고를 제기하였으나 대법원에서 상고기각으로 확정되었다.), 이에 참가인은 1993. 10. 30. 징계위원회의 결의를 거쳐 '회사의 재산을 횡령 또는 운송수입금을 부정 착복하였다는 증거가 명확한 자'를 해고할 수 있다는 단체협약 제35조 제1호에 따라 원고를 징계해고한 사실을 인정한 다음, 원고에 대한 이 사건 징계해고는 정당한 이유가 있고 달리 참가인이 원고의 노동조합활동을 방해하기 위하여 허위의 사실을 조작하여 이 사건 징계해고를 하였다는 증거가 없다는 이유로, 원고에 대한 이 사건 징계해고는 부당노동행위에 해당하지 아니한다고 판단하였다.

기록과 위에서 본 법리에 비추어 살펴보면 원심의 위와 같은 사실인정과 판단은 수긍이 되고, 거기에 상고이유로 주장하는 바와 같은 채증법칙 위배로 인한 사실오인이나 부당노동행위에 관한 법리오해의 위법이 없다.

그리고 참가인이 원고의 정당한 노동조합 활동을 혐오하여 원고를 해고한 것이 아닌 이상, 이 사건 해고에 있어서 징계위원회의 구성이나 징계절차가 위법하다는 주장은 이 사건 해고가 부당노동행위에 해당하는지의 여부에는 영향을 미칠 수 없는 것이므로 이에 관한 상고이유는 그 자체로서 이유가 없다.

그러므로 상고를 기각하고 상고비용은 패소자의 부담으로 하기로 하여 관여 법관들의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 이돈희(재판장) 최종영(주심) 정귀호 이임수

Related statutes

노동조합 및 노동관계조정법근로기준법

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
94누3001 · 대법원 1994-12-23
Revocation of Reexamination Decision on Unfair Labor Practic
#2
89누4666 · 대법원 1990-10-23
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Unfair Labor Practice Reme
#3
90누2246 · 대법원 1991-06-25
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Unfair Labor Practice Reme
#4
90누6132 · 대법원 1991-02-22
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Remedy for Unfair Labor Pr
#5
91누9572 · 대법원 1992-02-28
Revocation of Reexamination Decision on Remedy for Unfair La

Cases citing this decision

98다54960 · 대법원 2000-06-23
Confirmation of Invalidity of Dismissal, etc.
99두2963 · 대법원 2000-04-11
Revocation of Reexamination Decision on Remedy for Unfair Di
99두4273 · 대법원 1999-11-09
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Unfair Labor Practice Reme
98두4672 · 대법원 1999-03-26
Revocation of Reexamination Decision on Remedy for Unfair La

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)