[edit] Supreme Court Decision 97Da41349 delivered on January 14, 2000 [Affirmation of Non-existence of the Resolution at the Labor Union's National Representatives Meeting]

【Main Issue】

Whether Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the former Labor Union Act which provided a direct, secret and anonymous vote of the union members for the election of the national representatives of the labor union was a mandatory provision (affirmative)

【Summary of Decision】

Because the intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the former Labor Union Act (repealed by Article 3 of Addendum to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Law No. 5244 of December 31, 1996), which provided as a mandatory provision that the union representatives for the labor union's national representatives meeting substituting the general meeting of the union to function as the union's highest decision-making body must be elected by direct, secret and anonymous votes of the union members, was to attain democracy within the union by ensuring the participation of the union members in the decision-making process relating to its organization and operation, the union charter or the election management regulations prescribing an indirect election of the national representatives by preventing the participation of the union members in the national representatives election in violation of the above-stated provision of the former Labor Union Act shall be void unless there exists any special ground for exception.

【Reference Provisions】 Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the former Labor Union Act (repealed by Article 3 of Addendum to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Law No. 5244 of December 31, 1996; also see Paragraph 2 of Article 17 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act).

Article 20 of the former Labor Union Act (repealed by Article 3 of Addendum to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Law No. 5244 of December 31, 1996) (Meeting of the Representatives). (1) <omitted>

(2) National representatives must be elected by direct, secret and anonymous votes of the union members.

(3)~(4) <omitted>

【Plaintiff, Appellant】 Yoo Kwang-bae and 4 others (Law Office Shiminbar, Attorneys Yoon Jong-hyun and 4 others, Counsel for plaintiffs-appellants)

【Defendant, Appellee】 National Railroad Labor Union (Attorney Lee Jung-rak, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

【Court of First Instance】 Seoul District Court Judgment 96Gahap53357 delivered on February 14, 1997.

【Court of Second Instance】 Seoul Hight Court Judgment 97Na12596 delivered on July 30, 1997

【Disposition】 The Judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

【Reasoning】 The grounds for appeal are examined as follows:

1. The judgment of the court below

Pursuant to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of the first instance as quoted by the court below, it follows that: the defendant, as a labor union organized with the intent of unionizing the employees working at each work-site under the supervision of the National Railroad Administration and the employees working at the companies engaged in the railroad-related industry and in the incidental business, had regional headquarters at the work-sites directly supervised by the National Railroad Administration, the companies engaged in the railroad-related industry and the companies engaged in the incidental business, local branches under each regional headquarter, and designated group units for each work-site of local branch; the defendant held the 1996 Annual Meeting of National Representatives (hereinafter referred to as the "National Representatives Meeting at issue") on May 23, 1996, with ninety-five national representatives, including Chairman Cho Byung-hak, where the business plan and the annual budget for the year 1996 were approved and the resolution as described in the judgment of the court below was adopted; the defendant, under its union charter, the election management regulations and the rules for regional headquarters and local branches (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), had the meeting of the national representatives (hereinafter referred to as the "national representatives meeting") as prescribed by Article 20 of the former Labor Union Act (amended by Act, Law No. 3966 of November 28, 1987 and subsequently repealed by Article 3 of Addendum to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Law No. 5244 of December 31, 1996) as its highest decision-making body in lieu of the general meeting of the members (Articles 12 and 14 of the Rules) and the regional representatives meeting at each regional headquarter and local branch as its highest decision-making body under the national representatives meeting (Article 13 of the Union Charter and Articles 4 through 7 of the Rules); with respect to the method of convening the national representatives meeting and the election of the national representatives, the representatives of each local branch were elected by the direct, secret and anonymous votes of the union members in proportion to the number of union members represented, the representatives of each regional headquarter were elected by the direct, secret and anonymous votes of the representatives of the local branches in proportion to the number of union members represented, and the national representatives constituting the national representatives meeting were elected by the direct, secret and anonymous votes of the representatives of each regional headquarter in proportion to the number of union members represented; the election of the regional headquarter representatives at the local branch representatives meeting and the election of the national representatives by the regional headquarter representatives conventionally operated as an approval or disapproval of the candidates recommended by the chair or presiding committee; and the National Representatives Meeting at issue also consisted of the representatives elected by the same method.

Next, with respect to the plaintiffs' allegation that the national representatives who had been elected pursuant to the defendant's rules including the union charter were not legally authorized to act as the national representatives since the above-stated rules of the defendant, including the union charter, providing for the election of the members of the national representatives meeting by the regional headquarter representatives who were elected by the local branch representatives in the above-described method, were in violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the former Labor Union Act and were therefore void, the court below found, upon the evidence presented to the court below, that: the defendant consisted of 9 regional headquarters and 158 local branches with 28,508 individual members; the defendant adopted the above-described national representatives meeting in lieu of the general meeting of the union members because the defendant was practically precluded from convening a general meeting of the entire union membership at a given time and location due to the differences in work schedule by occupation, division and position, the unique work condition requiring the operation of the train for 24 hours a day, and the large number of 28,508 union members; the Federation of Korean Trade Unions, 16 industry-specific federations composed of 20 member unions under the Federation of Korean Trade Unions, and 4 nation-wide industry-specific individual labor unions had elected their respective national representatives to attend the meeting of the national representatives through the meetings of the individual labor union representatives or regional headquarter representatives pursuant to their union charters; and, in particular, certain other nation-wide industry-specific labor unions as the defendant, such as the Korean National Electric Workers Union, the Korean Tobacco and Ginseng Workers Union and the Korean Postal Workers Union, had also elected their respective national representatives through the meetings of the representatives elected by the union members at the branch level, rather than by a direct vote of the entire union members.

Based on the facts that the defendant's union charter and Rules allocated the number of the representatives in proportion to the number of the union members represented, and that, despite the principle that the national representatives should be elected by direct votes of the union members, it may be permitted as an exception under a reasonable interpretation of the law to elect the national representatives who attend the national representatives meeting that would substitute the general meeting of the union members by indirect votes of the representatives, as long as the intentions of the union members are reflected as accurately as possible under the practical circumstances of the union, for it was the intention of Article 20 of the former Labor Union Act to ensure the composition of the national representatives in a way to represent the intentions of the union members as accurately as possible while permitting the organization of the meeting of the national representatives where the size of the union was too large and the organizations were scattered over various regions, the court below declared that the rules of the defendant, including the union charter, governing the convening of the national representatives meeting, were not in violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Labor Union Act, and rejected the assertion of the plaintiffs as having no merit

2. Judgment of this court

However, the intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the former Labor Union Act providing that the national representatives to attend the national representatives meeting of the national representatives functioning as the highest decision-making body of the union in lieu of the general meeting of the union members must be elected by a direct, secret and anonymous vote of the union members was to attain democracy within the union by ensuring the participation of the union members in the decision-making process relating to its organization and operation and such a provision was a mandatory provision. Therefore, unless there existed a special ground for exception, the union charter or the election management regulations prescribing an indirect election of the national representatives by preventing the direct participation of the union members in the election of the national representatives in violation of the above-stated provision of the former Labor Union Act shall be void. It is evident that the above-mentioned regulations of the defendant governing the election of its national representatives provided for an indirect election of the national representatives while ignoring the above-stated provisions of law and are thus in violation of the mandatory provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the former Labor Union Act, therefore shall be void unless there existed a special ground for exception.

Meanwhile, based on the findings that the defendant had 28,508 union members and was composed of 9 regional headquarters and 158 local branches under the regional headquarters throughout the nation, and that the defendant was practically precluded from convening a general meeting of the entire union membership at a given time and location due to the differences in the work schedule by occupation, division and position, the unique work condition requiring the operation of the train for 24 hours a day and the large number of 28,508 union members, the court below determined that it would be appropriate to interpret that the election of the national representatives by indirect votes of the representatives of the union members as long as the intentions of the union members were reflected as accurately as possible under the circumstances of the union in case that the union was nation-wide and the organizations were scattered over various regions. However, if national representatives are elected by a direct, secret and anonymous vote of the union members at each local branch or regional headquarter in the number allocated to each local branch or regional headquarter in proportion to the number of the union members represented, it may be deemed that the national representatives are elected in compliance with the above-stated Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the former Labor Union Act without requiring the entire union members to gather at a specific location and, thus, the conditions referred to by the court below are not sufficient to warrant a permissible exception under Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the former Labor Union Act as interpreted allowing an election of the national representatives through indirect votes, regardless of whether the intentions of the defendant's union members could be reflected as accurately as possible in the decision of the national representatives meeting made by the national representatives who had not been elected by direct votes of the union members.

The decision of the court below notwithstanding the foregoing, that the defendant's union charter and other regulations governing the composition of the national representatives meeting were not in violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the former Labor Union Act by interpreting the same provision as permitting the indirect election of the national representatives on the grounds asserted by the defendant was a misinterpretation of Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the former Labor Union Act and, is therefore contrary to the law. Since the interpretation of the court below as such which is contrary to the law clearly influenced the judgment of the court below, the appeal on the ground of this prejudicial error shall be justified.

3. Consequently, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below for retrial and determination. This decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Cho Moo-jeh (Presiding Justice)

Kim Hyoung-sun (Justice in charge)

Lee Yong-hoon

Lee Yong-woo

This is a legal document in the public domain according to Korean Copyright Law.