[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee] Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission
[Intervenor for the Defendant] Myeongsin Industrial Co., Ltd., Attorney Ham Yeong-eop, Counsel for the Intervenor
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu9868, decided September 10, 1993
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The Plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts: the Plaintiff joined the company of the Intervenor for the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the Intervenor") on December 10, 1990, as a welder, and while working there, was elected chairman of the Intervenor company's labor union on September 1, 1992, since which time he had engaged in active labor union activities; when the Intervenor company implemented personnel measures in November 1991 involving the transfer of some employees and the dismissal of two team leaders, the Intervenor company's labor union, centered around the Plaintiff, engaged in activities such as a signature campaign, distribution of leaflets, posting of wall newspapers, five rallies held during lunch hours, eight all-night sit-ins, a sit-in in front of the president's office, and leading a refusal to work overtime, from November 4 to November 16 of that year, thereby disrupting the Intervenor company's normal production activities, until an agreement was reached at an ad hoc labor-management council held on November 16 of that year, including a provision that transferred employees would be given top priority in future measures, whereupon the Plaintiff discontinued the aforementioned protest activities; that on November 20 of that year, upon receiving notice from the Gyeongju Police Station that the Plaintiff had enrolled in the Department of Economics at ○○ University and engaged in student and labor movements, that he had been employed at △△ Musical Instruments Co., Ltd. located in Incheon while concealing his educational background, that he had worked as a staff member at the labor law consultation office of the Incheon Labor Hall around October 1986, and that he had been conscripted into the military while in his second semester of his third year at the Department of Economics of ○○ University, and having omitted such background from the resume submitted at the time of employment, the Intervenor company disciplinarily dismissed the Plaintiff on December 10, 1990, on the grounds of the aforementioned matters together with the misconduct committed in protesting the personnel measures; however, the court below found that these facts alone were insufficient to establish that the Intervenor company dismissed the Plaintiff in retaliation for his union activities and simultaneously to suppress union activities, and that there was no other evidence sufficient to establish this. On the other hand, the court below found that when a company requires an employee to submit a resume stating educational background, career history, and the like at the time of hiring, this is not merely for the purpose of evaluating the employee's work capability, but is intended to serve as material for a comprehensive, whole-person judgment—taking into account the employee's intelligence, common sense, experience, skills, level of education, honesty, and settledness and adaptability in the workplace—for determining whether to hire the person, which is necessary for building trust between labor and management and maintaining corporate order; therefore, insofar as the Plaintiff intentionally omitted his educational background and career history from the resume submitted upon joining the Intervenor company, in light of the importance which these hold among the Plaintiff's entire career history, this could not but be found to constitute "a person employed by fraud or improper means," which is a ground for dismissal under Article 74, Item 1 of the Intervenor company's Rules of Employment; accordingly, the court below determined that the Intervenor company's disciplinary dismissal of the Plaintiff in this case could not but be regarded as a dismissal with justifiable grounds, and that the Intervenor company's dismissal of the Plaintiff on these disciplinary grounds appeared to be an exercise of the employer's inherent disciplinary authority for the purpose of maintaining corporate order, and could not be found to constitute an unfair labor practice; the court below thus determined that the Defendant's decision on reexamination in this case, which reached the same conclusion, was lawful.
Upon examination of the record, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justified, and there is no illegality therein, as argued in the grounds of appeal, resulting from a violation of the rules of evidence leading to a mistake of fact or a misapprehension of the legal principles. All the grounds of appeal are without merit.
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.
Presiding Justice Ji Chang-gwon (Presiding Justice), Cheon Gyeong-song (Justice in Charge), An Yong-deuk, Shin Seong-taek