All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】 Supreme Court Order 2024Ma6760 Dated December 24, 2024 【Provisional Disposition for Prohibition Against Interfering with Entry】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Requirements to justify the activities of the trade union Where the activities of the trade union performed by employees of a contractor for work at the workplace of the person who ordered the work conflict with the authority of the person who ordered the work over labor management, facility management, etc., whether legitimacy can be seen to be secured even in the relationship with the person who ordered the work, who is not an employer, on the sole basis of the circumstance that the legitimacy of the activities of the trade union in the relationship with the person who ordered the work , who is an employer, was satisfied (negative in principle) Cases where the above activities of the trade union can be deemed just even in relation to the person who ordered the work and standard of determining whether to correspond to such cases [2] In a case where Company A, which is a limited liability company (LLC), entrusted Stock Company B and others with the delivery service for Company A’s cargo; Delivery Man C and others of Stock Company B and others, while carrying out delivery tasks at the delivery center provided by Company A, organized a trade union and conducted promotional activities to recruit the members of the trade union; in response, Company A took measures against Delivery Man C and others, including banning access to the delivery center and prohibiting the use of the application for business; and Delivery Man C and others filed a provisional disposition for prohibition against interfering with entry against Company A on the grounds that these measures interfered with their activities of the trade union, the case holding that even though there was vast room to see that Delivery Man C and others had the right to conduct promotional activities to recruit the members of the trade union within the delivery center of Company A at least within the scope that harmonized with Company A’s facility management rights and other related authorities and there was also a significant possibility of recognizing the need for preservation regarding the access to the delivery center and the use of the application for business that had originally been permitted to Delivery Man C and others, the lower court, which determined otherwise, erred and adversely affected the conclusion of judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine | |
