[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee] Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission
[Intervenor for the Defendant]
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court, Judgment of April 30, 1993, Case No. 92Gu24600
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
We examine the grounds of appeal.
As to Ground No. 1,
Article 4, Item 3 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act (노동쟁의조정법, hereinafter referred to as the "Labor Dispute Mediation Act") provides that public health and medical services are among the public utility services indispensable to the daily life of the public, and therefore the above provision cannot be said to be unconstitutional as violating Article 31, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution concerning the three labor rights, Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution concerning the right to equality, and Article 37, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, which is the general limitation clause on fundamental rights, as argued by the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, it is the established view of this Court that Articles 30, Item 3, 31, and 47 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act are not unconstitutional provisions (see this Court's Judgments of May 15, 1990, Case No. 90Do357; September 28, 1990, Case No. 90Do602, etc.). Furthermore, the above provisions of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act do not conflict with ILO Convention No. 105 as argued by the Plaintiff. This ground for appeal is without merit.
As to Ground No. 2,
Regarding the Plaintiff's argument, namely, that the arbitration award in this case and the Defendant's decision on reexamination are unlawful because they were made in accordance with the government's unconstitutional total-amount-standard wage policy, the court below found as follows: that in rendering the arbitration award in this case regarding the wage increase between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor Hospital, the Seoul Metropolitan Local Labor Relations Commission did partially take into account the fact that the Intervenor Hospital, being a government-funded institution, should follow the government's aforementioned total-amount-standard wage policy, but that it rendered the arbitration award in this case primarily based on an analysis and consideration of the financial structure of the Intervenor Hospital; and that the Defendant likewise dismissed the Plaintiff's application for reexamination of the arbitration, holding that, in light of the financial structure of the Intervenor Hospital, the arbitration award in this case could not be regarded as unlawful or as exceeding the scope of authority. The court below thus held that the arbitration award and the decision on reexamination in this case could not, in the end, be said to have been made in accordance with the government's aforementioned total-amount-standard wage policy. Upon examination of the record, the above factual findings of the court below are justified, and there is no illegality due to misapprehension of the rules of evidence resulting in erroneous fact-finding, as argued by the Plaintiff.
Whether the government's total-amount-standard wage policy violates the Constitution has no bearing whatsoever on the court below's determination of whether the arbitration award or the decision on reexamination in this case was unlawful or made in excess of authority. Therefore, the argument that the judgment below is unlawful due to failure to render judgment, insufficient deliberation, or misapprehension of legal principles on this point cannot be accepted.
As to Ground No. 3,
The court below's holding that the dispute concerning the demands for fairness in admission procedures and reduction of waiting time for medical treatment is a matter to be resolved through cooperation among the members of the management organization, and is not a dispute concerning working conditions, and therefore is not subject to arbitration, and that the Seoul Metropolitan Local Labor Relations Commission's exclusion of the Plaintiff's above demands from the subject matter of arbitration was lawful, is justified.
However, even if the court below erred in holding, in effect, that among disputes arising in labor-management relations, only collective disputes of interest are subject to arbitration, and that collective disputes of rights or grievances arising primarily from individual employment relationships are excluded therefrom, the record shows that the dispute concerning the Plaintiff's demand for reinstatement of those on leave of absence and those dismissed concerns the demand for reinstatement on the ground that the leave-of-absence dispositions against three individuals, namely, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3, who are officers of the Plaintiff union, were unjust; and since such a dispute over rights is not appropriately resolved through arbitration by the Labor Relations Commission, the Labor Relations Commission may render a decision to the effect that the matter should be resolved through judicial procedures. Accordingly, the court below's holding that the Labor Relations Commission's decision excluding the dispute concerning the above demand for reinstatement from arbitration was correct is justified in its conclusion, and thus the argument criticizing the judgment below as containing an error of misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.
As to Ground No. 4,
The court below found the facts as stated in the original judgment, including that the Plaintiff and the Intervenor Hospital held twelve rounds of collective bargaining, as stated in the original judgment, for the conclusion of a collective agreement regarding wages, etc. for the year 1992, but that the bargaining broke down, and that thereafter, on May 27, 1992, the arbitration award in this case was rendered. Based on these findings and in light of the circumstances leading to the arbitration award and the decision on reexamination in this case, the court below held that the Local Labor Relations Commission and the Defendant made efforts toward the autonomous resolution between labor and management of the labor dispute described in the original judgment between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor Hospital, and that therefore the arbitration award and the decision on reexamination in this case could not be regarded as unlawful or as exceeding the scope of authority on the ground of disregarding the principle of autonomous resolution between labor and management. Upon examination of the record, the above factual findings and determination of the court below are justified, and there is no illegality due to violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles, as argued by the Plaintiff. This ground for appeal is without merit.
As to Ground No. 5,
An objection to an arbitration award is permitted only where the arbitration award is found to be unlawful or made in excess of authority; an objection is not permitted merely on the ground that the arbitration award is unfavorable to either labor or management and is therefore unjust or unreasonable in content (see this Court's Judgment of July 14, 1992, Case No. 91Nu8944).
In the same vein, the court below's holding — that since it is clear that the Plaintiff's argument in this case is premised on the assertion that the portions concerning the wage increase in the arbitration award and the decision on reexamination in this case are all unilaterally unfavorable to the Plaintiff and therefore unfair, even accepting the Plaintiff's argument as stated, the Plaintiff is merely raising an issue of simple unfairness or unreasonableness in content, which cannot constitute grounds of unlawfulness or excess of authority in the arbitration award or the decision on reexamination — is justified, and there is no illegality due to misapprehension of legal principles, as argued by the Plaintiff. This ground for appeal is 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 by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices as stated in the Order.
Justice Cheon Gyeong-song (Presiding Justice), Ahn U-man (Justice in charge), Kim Yong-jun, Ahn Yong-deuk