본문 바로가기
JIPYONG LLC
ABOUT US
Our Firm
Our Offices
SERVICES
Practice Area
Industry
Region
Center
PROFESSIONALS
Member Search
NEWS
Jipyong News
Media Library
Newsletters
Social Value Management
ESG Policy
Public Interest Policy
CAREERS
How to Apply
ENG
KOR
ENG
CHN
JPN
Search
Menu
ABOUT US
Our Firm
Our Offices
SERVICES
Practice Area
Industry
Region
Center
PROFESSIONALS
Member Search
NEWS
Jipyong News
Media Library
Newsletters
Social Value Management
ESG Policy
Public Interest Policy
CAREERS
How to Apply
Close
Delete
Search
공유하기
프린트하기
Jipyong News
|
Newsletter_Labor & Employment
[Recent Court Case 5] Industry union executives’ entry to subsidiary companies’ places of business without the company’s permission was valid union activities and not punishable.
2020.07.29
<p><strong>[Case No. Supreme Court decision 2017Do2478 dated July 29, 2020]</strong> <br /> <br /> The Supreme Court rendered a decision holding that the industry union executives’ entry to the subsidiary companies’ places of business without any permission from the company was valid union activities and deemed a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Code, thereby not punishable as illegal entry. <br /> <br /> The defendants were the executives of the national metal industry union who were indicted for allegedly entering into the manufacturing plant of a company. These executives were appointed as the head of the labor safety and health at the national metal industry union and the head of non-regular employment at the regional labor union. They entered the plant to collect evidence of violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and to deliver training for the union members. <br /> <br /> The court upheld the lower court’s verdict of innocence on the ground that the defendants did infringe any rights of the company in the facility management in view of the following facts: the national metal industry union executives routinely entered the same plant for the same purposes without any interference from the plant managers; the defendants did not touch the plant’s facilities or equipment but simply observed for 30 to 40 minutes; the defendants did not engage in any physical violence or threat; and the defendants did not interfere with the business. <br /> <br /> The Supreme Court also found that there was no mistake of law in the court’s verdict on the ground that the defendants’ acts were justifiable considering that the defendants did not cause any practical interference with the business operation, job performance, or facility management. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the claim for appeal. </p>
News Update
Jipyong Publishes the 2019 Sustainability Report
2020.07.29
Newsletter_Labor & Employment
[Article] Comparative Case Study of Nature of Vouchers
2020.07.15
Back to List
Related Practices
Labor & Employment
Labor & Employment Disputes
Professionals
Associate
Seok Hwan JEONG
+82-2-6200-1662
shjeong@jipyong.com
