부당노동행위 구제신청의 당사자 적격 판단

Abstract

In this case, the issue was whether the conciliatory remarks of the executive director, who has the position of representing the interests of the company, constituted an unfair labor practice against union members and labor unions, As a related issue or prerequisite, whether an employer who are not business owner is eligible as a respondent for an unfair labor practice remedy application, and a labor union who is not the direct counterpart of the unfair labor practice is eligible as an applicant for an unfair labor practice remedy application in case of infringement of rights. This is a case in which a judgment is made on the eligibility of the parties, etc. Regarding this issue, the target judgment is based on Article 81 of the Trade Union Act, criticizing the understanding that only the business owner has the qualifications of the respondent in relation to the remedy order when it is conventionally judged that unfair labor practices are established with respect to the eligibility of the respondent. It was judged that all the users specified were qualified as respondents. And if the rights of a specific trade union may be infringed due to unfair labor practices against a trade union that seeks to join or solidarity with a specific trade union regarding the eligibility of the applicant, the specific trade union directly commits the unfair labor practice Even if it is not the other party, it is judged that it has the qualifications to apply for remedy for unfair labor practice. In spite of some unsatisfactory aspects in the target judgment, it is possible to apply for relief against the manager, etc. It is significant in that it is a ruling that can make a big change in practice related to unfair labor practice relief applications, such as the specific labor union having the right to apply for relief.