Supreme Court: 'Unfair Labor Practices' by Executives for Employers... Employer Responsibility

Court: "Executives Can Also Be Respondents in Unfair Labor Practice Relief Applications"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that users such as executives, who are not business owners, can also be parties to unfair labor practice relief applications. The Supreme Court also presented the standard that an unfair labor practice committed by a "user acting on behalf of the business owner" within the scope of their authority and responsibility can be recognized as an unfair labor practice of the business owner.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice No Tae-ak) announced on the 5th that it upheld the lower court's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in the appeal trial of the cancellation lawsuit against the Central Labor Commissioner's decision on unfair labor practice relief filed by Mr. A and the "National Taxi Industry Labor Union" (Taxi Industry Union).

Mr. A, who was the branch president of the National Taxi Industry Labor Union (National Taxi Union), was expelled from the National Taxi Union in 2015 for establishing a separate enterprise-level union at the taxi company he worked for. The newly formed union then joined the Taxi Industry Union, and the procedure for single bargaining channel among the labor unions began.

The National Taxi Union, which had maintained a friendly relationship with the company for a long time, was at risk of losing its status as the representative bargaining union due to Mr. A's activities. Shortly after, Mr. B, the company's executive director, made a coaxing remark to Mr. A, saying, "Do not unite with the Taxi Industry Union." Mr. A and the Taxi Industry Union filed a relief application with the labor authorities, claiming this was an unfair labor practice. However, the local labor commission and the central labor commission dismissed Mr. A's relief application and rejected the application against Mr. B, leading Mr. A to file a lawsuit.

The first trial court ruled that Mr. B, as a company executive and not a business owner, could not be a party to the relief application. It also found that Mr. B's remarks did not constitute an unfair labor practice. On the other hand, the second trial court held that the executive director is also a "person acting on behalf of the business owner regarding employee matters" and thus can be a party to an unfair labor practice relief application, siding with Mr. A and the Taxi Industry Union. It also pointed out that Mr. B's remarks were unfair labor practices.

The Supreme Court agreed with the second trial court's judgment. The court ruled that users (such as executives) who are not business owners can be parties to unfair labor practice relief applications, and that labor unions, even if not the direct recipients of unfair labor practice remarks, have standing to file such applications if their rights are infringed by those remarks.

Furthermore, the court established the standard that "when a person acting on behalf of the business owner regarding employee matters under the Labor Union Act commits an unfair labor practice within the scope of their authority and responsibility, such acts can also be recognized as unfair labor practices of the business owner."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.