All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2013Da101425 Decided April 7, 2017【Wage】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Requirements for an employer’s lock-out to be deemed a lawful industrial action as prescribed under Article 46 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act Whether in such case, the employer is exempt from the duty of wage payment during the lock-out period (affirmative) [2] In the event that a lock-out conducted by an employer in itself is deemed lawful but the lock-out continues, albeit workers having discontinued their industrial action after a certain point in time and expressed their genuine desire to return to work, and defeats the original purpose of countering the workers’ industrial action to become aggressive by nature, whether the lawfulness of the lock-out thereafter is invalid (affirmative), and whether the employer is exempt from the duty of wage payment during the lock-out period (negative) In such case, the degree of genuine desire to return to work expressed by workers [3] In a case where: (i) Company A locked out all of its union members on the ground that the industrial action taken by its trade union constituted an illegal strike; (ii) the trade union subsequently (a) expressed in writing to the company on several occasions from the day following the lock-out that the union members wished to return to work, (b) sent a letter of guarantee of labor provision to the company from certain union members including Party A (hereinafter “Party A, etc.”), and (c) submitted a report on the suspension of industrial action to the relevant local labor relations commission; (iii) the competent local employment and labor office accordingly sent a written notice to Company A “urging the company to reconsider the continuance of the lock-out and begin negotiations in good faith,” which then led the company to end the lock-out 22 days after having received and confirmed the written notice on the same day; and (iv) Party A, etc. thereafter sought a claim for unpaid wages during the lock-out period against Company A, the case holding that Company A owed the duty of wage payment to Party A, etc. on the ground that the continuation of the lock-up for another 22 days after having received the written notice from the local employment and labor office constituted unlawful industrial action |
|
