Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Bargaining-unit separation as an exceptional case
Supreme Court, Sept. 13, 2018, 2015Du39361 (judgment)
Case name: 교섭단위분리결정재심결정취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What does 'a case in which it is recognised that there is a need to divide the bargaining unit' under Article 29-3(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act mean, and may a party challenge a decision of the Labour Commission on an application to divide the bargaining unit merely because it disadvantages one side?
Holding
Separation is justified only in an exceptional case, namely where circumstances such as a marked difference in working conditions, the form of employment and bargaining practice justify conducting collective bargaining through a separately divided bargaining unit, and where unifying the bargaining channel through the bargaining representative union may fail to serve the purpose of the unification system, which is to build a stable bargaining structure through a uniform formation of working conditions. A decision of the Labour Commission on an application to divide the bargaining unit may be challenged only where the procedure was unlawful, where the content is unlawful, such as where a case calling for separation was dismissed through a misunderstanding of the legal principle on the requirements, or where the decision was an act in excess of authority.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
하나의 사업 또는 사업장에서 별도로 분리된 교섭단위에 의하여 단체교섭을 진행하는 것을 정당화할 만한 현격한 근로조건의 차이, 고용형태, 교섭 관행 등의 사정이 있고, 이로 인하여 교섭대표노동조합을 통하여 교섭창구를 단일화하는 것이 오히려 근로조건의 통일적 형성을 통해 안정적인 교섭체계를 구축하고자 하는 교섭창구 단일화 제도의 취지에도 부합하지 않는 결과를 발생시킬 수 있는 예외적인 경우를 의미한다.
Unofficial English translation
It means an exceptional case where there are circumstances such as a marked difference in working conditions, forms of employment, and bargaining practices that justify conducting collective bargaining through a separately separated bargaining unit in one business or workplace, and where, as a result, unifying the bargaining channel through the exclusive bargaining representative union may rather bring about a result that does not accord with the purpose of the single-channel bargaining system, which seeks to establish a stable bargaining system through the uniform formation of working conditions.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
노동조합법 제29조의3 제2항에서 규정하고 있는 ‘교섭단위를 분리할 필요가 있다고 인정되는 경우’란 하나의 사업 또는 사업장에서 별도로 분리된 교섭단위에 의하여 단체교섭을 진행하는 것을 정당화할 만한 현격한 근로조건의 차이, 고용형태, 교섭 관행 등의 사정이 있고,
Unofficial English translation
"A case recognized as necessary to separate the bargaining unit" as provided in Article 29-3 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act means a case where there are circumstances such as a marked difference in working conditions, forms of employment, and bargaining practices that justify conducting collective bargaining through a separately separated bargaining unit in one business or workplace, and
Factors
- 현격한 근로조건의 차이, 고용형태, 교섭 관행 등의 사정이 있고
- 근로조건의 통일적 형성을 통해 안정적인 교섭체계를 구축하고자 하는 교섭창구 단일화 제도의 취지에도 부합하지 않는 결과를 발생시킬 수 있는 예외적인 경우를 의미한다
- 단순히 어느 일방에게 불리한 내용이라는 사유만으로는 불복이 허용되지 않고
- 노동조합법 제29조의3 제2항이 정한 교섭단위 분리결정의 요건에 관한 법리를 오해하여 교섭단위를 분리할 필요가 있다고 인정되는 경우인데도 그 신청을 기각하는 등 내용이 위법한 경우
Unofficial English translation
• there are circumstances such as a marked difference in working conditions, forms of employment, and bargaining practices, and
• means an exceptional case that may bring about a result that does not accord with the purpose of the single-channel bargaining system, which seeks to establish a stable bargaining system through the uniform formation of working conditions
• a challenge is not permitted on the sole ground that the content is disadvantageous to one party, and
• where the content is unlawful, such as where the application is dismissed despite a case recognized as necessary to separate the bargaining unit, by misapprehending the legal principle concerning the requirements for a decision to separate a bargaining unit as provided in Article 29-3 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
이러한 노동조합법 규정의 내용과 형식, 교섭창구 단일화를 원칙으로 하면서도 일정한 경우 교섭단위의 분리를 인정하고 있는 노동조합법의 입법 취지 등을 고려하면,
Unofficial English translation
If the content and form of such provisions of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and the legislative purpose of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which recognizes the separation of bargaining units in certain cases while making the single-channel bargaining system a principle, are considered,
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How marked must the difference in working conditions be before circumstances such as it justify dividing the bargaining unit?
A later decision fixing the level of difference the Court left as 'marked', or an amendment to Article 29-2 or Article 29-3 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act, would require this entry to be read again. A fuller record of the court below's reasoning, which the Supreme Court called slightly thin, or a Commission file showing that the wage systems were in substance the same, would also call for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reads the judgment as setting a new standard for separation, while the independent reading could not confirm whether it is a new precedent, so the precedent relationship is unclear from the text.
이러한 노동조합법 규정의 내용과 형식, 교섭창구 단일화를 원칙으로 하면서도 일정한 경우 교섭단위의 분리를 인정하고 있는 노동조합법의 입법 취지 등을 고려하면,Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daejeon High Court, in its judgment of 5 February 2015 (2014Nu12374), held the retrial decision lawful: that decision had cancelled the first-instance decision, which had dismissed the application of the union in this case, and had divided the bargaining unit. It dismissed the claim of the plaintiff, the employer entity, to have that retrial decision cancelled. The decision does not set out in full the reasoning by which the court below reached that conclusion.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court applied the provisions and the legal principle to the facts found in the reasons and the record. The permanent employees were governed by a separate management regulation and received a fundamentally different wage structure from the other job categories, their job roles were clearly separated with no personnel exchange allowed, they had a separate consultative body and separate wage agreements since the predecessor facility management corporation, and union membership was divided by job category, so a need to divide the bargaining unit was recognised. It held that the first-instance decision erred in denying that need by finding only that the wage items shared a basic pay structure while disregarding the difference in the wage system, and that, although the court below's reasoning was slightly thin, its conclusion that the retrial decision was lawful was proper, so the appeal was dismissed with costs on the plaintiff by the unanimous opinion of the four participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which there is no marked difference in working conditions, form of employment or bargaining practice capable of justifying collective bargaining through a separately divided bargaining unit.
- A case in which unifying the bargaining channel through the bargaining representative union still serves the uniform formation of working conditions and a stable bargaining structure, so that no result at odds with the purpose of the system arises.
- A challenge to a Labour Commission decision resting on no illegality of procedure or content and no act in excess of authority, which the Court held is not allowed even where the decision disadvantages one side.
Record verification notes
Gather what the file shows on each circumstance the Court named: the wage system and the regulation governing it, the division of job roles, whether personnel exchange is allowed, the history of separate bargaining since the predecessor entity, and which job categories each union's members come from. Then check whether the Labour Commission examined those circumstances, since the Court's criticism was that the first-instance decision looked only at the shared basic pay structure. Finally, set the ground of the challenge against Article 29-3(3) read with Article 69(1) and (2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act: mere disadvantage to one side is not enough, so the record must show unlawful procedure, unlawful content or an act in excess of authority.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제29조의3 제2항에서 규정하고 있는 ‘교섭단위를 분리할 필요가 있다고 인정되는 경우’의 의미 [2] 교섭단위 분리 신청에 대한 노동위원회의 결정에 관하여 단순히 어느 일방에게 불리한 내용이라는 사유만으로 불복이 허용되는지 여부(소극) 및 불복이 허용되는 경우
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of "a case recognized as necessary to separate the bargaining unit" as provided in Article 29-3 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act [2] Whether a challenge is permitted to a decision of the Labor Commission on an application for separation of a bargaining unit on the sole ground that the content is disadvantageous to one party (negative), and cases in which a challenge is permitted
Summary of the holding
[1] 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법(이하 ‘노동조합법’이라 한다) 제29조의2, 제29조의3 제1항, 제2항의 내용과 형식, 교섭창구 단일화를 원칙으로 하면서도 일정한 경우 교섭단위의 분리를 인정하고 있는 노동조합법의 입법 취지 등을 고려하면, 노동조합법 제29조의3 제2항에서 규정하고 있는 ‘교섭단위를 분리할 필요가 있다고 인정되는 경우’란 하나의 사업 또는 사업장에서 별도로 분리된 교섭단위에 의하여 단체교섭을 진행하는 것을 정당화할 만한 현격한 근로조건의 차이, 고용형태, 교섭 관행 등의 사정이 있고, 이로 인하여 교섭대표노동조합을 통하여 교섭창구를 단일화하는 것이 오히려 근로조건의 통일적 형성을 통해 안정적인 교섭체계를 구축하고자 하는 교섭창구 단일화 제도의 취지에도 부합하지 않는 결과를 발생시킬 수 있는 예외적인 경우를 의미한다. [2] 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법(이하 ‘노동조합법’이라 한다) 제29조의3 제3항은 교섭단위 분리 신청에 대한 노동위원회의 결정에 불복할 경우 노동조합법 제69조를 준용하도록 하고 있고, 노동조합법 제69조 제1항, 제2항은 노동위원회의 중재재정 등에 대한 불복의 사유를 ‘위법이거나 월권에 의한 것’인 경우로 한정하고 있다. 따라서 교섭단위 분리 신청에 대한 노동위원회의 결정에 관하여는 단순히 어느 일방에게 불리한 내용이라는 사유만으로는 불복이 허용되지 않고, 그 절차가 위법하거나, 노동조합법 제29조의3 제2항이 정한 교섭단위 분리결정의 요건에 관한 법리를 오해하여 교섭단위를 분리할 필요가 있다고 인정되는 경우인데도 그 신청을 기각하는 등 내용이 위법한 경우, 그 밖에 월권에 의한 것인 경우에 한하여 불복할 수 있다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
[1] 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제29조의2, 제29조의3 제1항, 제2항 [2] 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제29조의3 제2항, 제3항, 제69조 제1항, 제2항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger