Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Union shop agreement reaching only workers outside all unions
Supreme Court, Nov. 28, 2019, 2019Du47377 (judgment)
Case name: 부당해고구제재심판정취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a newly hired worker has already joined, without passing through the dominant union, a union other than the dominant union concluded a union shop agreement with the employer, may the employer dismiss that worker under the union shop agreement?
Holding
No. The freedom to choose a union for the exercise of the right to organise is a constitutional basic right, and the right to organise of a union that did not conclude the union shop agreement must be respected equally with that of the dominant union. The effect of such an agreement therefore reaches only workers whose freedom of choice and whose union's right to organise are unaffected, that is, workers belonging to no union; a dismissal of a newly hired worker who has already joined another union is a dismissal without just cause and is void, even though that worker did not pass through the procedure for joining and withdrawing from the dominant union.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
유니온 숍 협정의 효력은 근로자의 노동조합 선택의 자유 및 지배적 노동조합이 아닌 노동조합의 단결권이 영향을 받지 아니하는 근로자, 즉 어느 노동조합에도 가입하지 아니한 근로자에게만 미친다.
Unofficial English translation
The effect of a union shop agreement extends only to employees whose freedom of choice of labor union and right of solidarity of a labor union that is not the dominant labor union are not affected, that is, only to employees who have not joined any labor union.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal are borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
이러한 점들을 종합적으로 고려하면, 근로자의 노동조합 선택의 자유 및 지배적 노동조합이 아닌 노동조합의 단결권이 침해되는 경우에까지 지배적 노동조합이 사용자와 체결한 유니온 숍 협정의 효력을 그대로 인정할 수는 없고
Unofficial English translation
Considering these points comprehensively, the effect of the union shop agreement that the dominant labor union has entered into with the employer cannot be recognized as it stands even in cases where the employee's freedom of choice of labor union and the right of solidarity of a labor union that is not the dominant labor union are infringed, and
Factors
- 근로자에게는 단결권 행사를 위해 가입할 노동조합을 스스로 선택할 자유가 헌법상 기본권으로 보장되고
- 지배적 노동조합이 가진 단결권과 마찬가지로 유니온 숍 협정을 체결하지 않은 다른 노동조합의 단결권도 동등하게 존중되어야 한다
- 지배적 노동조합이 체결한 유니온 숍 협정은 사용자를 매개로 한 해고의 위협을 통해 지배적 노동조합에 가입하도록 강제한다는 점에서 허용 범위가 제한적일 수밖에 없다
- 근로자가 노동조합 선택의 자유를 행사하여 지배적 노동조합이 아닌 노동조합에 이미 가입한 경우에는
Unofficial English translation
• An employee is guaranteed the freedom to choose for himself or herself the labor union to join in order to exercise the right of solidarity as a fundamental right under the Constitution, and
• the right of solidarity of another labor union that has not entered into a union shop agreement must be respected on an equal footing, just as with the right of solidarity possessed by the dominant labor union
• a union shop agreement entered into by the dominant labor union, in that it compels joining the dominant labor union through the threat of dismissal mediated by the employer, cannot but have a limited scope of permissibility
• where an employee, exercising the freedom of choice of labor union, has already joined a labor union that is not the dominant labor union,
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
유니온 숍 협정의 효력은 근로자의 노동조합 선택의 자유 및 지배적 노동조합이 아닌 노동조합의 단결권이 영향을 받지 아니하는 근로자, 즉 어느 노동조합에도 가입하지 아니한 근로자에게만 미친다.
Unofficial English translation
The effect of a union shop agreement extends only to employees whose freedom of choice of labor union and right of solidarity of a labor union that is not the dominant labor union are not affected, that is, only to employees who have not joined any labor union.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the date on which a newly hired worker joined the non-dominant union is disputed, what evidence fixes that the worker was already a member at the time of hiring?
A later Supreme Court decision on the personal scope of union shop agreements, or on the proviso to Article 81(ii) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act, would require this entry to be read again. A record showing that the agreement's union did not represent two thirds or more of the workers, or that a worker joined the other union only after hiring, would also change the reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 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 5 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary reading treats the holding as a comprehensive weighing of several considerations, while the independent reading treats it as a set of stated requirements, so the form of the standard differs.
유니온 숍 협정의 효력은 근로자의 노동조합 선택의 자유 및 지배적 노동조합이 아닌 노동조합의 단결권이 영향을 받지 아니하는 근로자, 즉 어느 노동조합에도 가입하지 아니한 근로자에게만 미친다.Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading presents the holding as establishing a new standard, while the independent reading does not treat it as a new precedent, so the relation to precedent differs.
유니온 숍 협정의 효력은 근로자의 노동조합 선택의 자유 및 지배적 노동조합이 아닌 노동조합의 단결권이 영향을 받지 아니하는 근로자, 즉 어느 노동조합에도 가입하지 아니한 근로자에게만 미친다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the date on which a newly hired worker joined the non-dominant union is disputed, what evidence fixes that the worker was already a member at the time of hiring?” vs Independent “How does the agreement apply if a new employee joins another union only after the employer has initiated dismissal procedures?”
The primary reading asks what evidence proves membership at the time of hiring, while the independent reading asks how the agreement applies when the hire joins another union only after dismissal proceedings have begun.
유니온 숍 협정의 효력은 근로자의 노동조합 선택의 자유 및 지배적 노동조합이 아닌 노동조합의 단결권이 영향을 받지 아니하는 근로자, 즉 어느 노동조합에도 가입하지 아니한 근로자에게만 미친다.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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 13 June 2019 (2019Nu30302), held that the dismissal of the three workers under the union shop agreement was an unfair dismissal, taking together the wording of Article 81(ii) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act and the history and purpose of the amendment of the latter part of its proviso, along with the other circumstances it set out.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Measured against the law it stated and the record, the court below had not misunderstood the law on the proviso to Article 81(ii) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act, nor failed to examine what it needed to, in breach of the rules of logic and experience. The Justices unanimously dismissed the employer's appeal and placed the costs on it as the losing party.
Distinguishing conditions
- A worker who belongs to no union at the time of the dismissal, since the Court held that the agreement's effect reaches such a worker.
- A worker who was already a member of the dominant union and then joined or organised another union, since the proviso to Article 81(ii) bars adverse treatment on that ground and the decision concerned new entrants.
- An agreement with a union that does not represent two thirds or more of the workers at the workplace, since the proviso's exception presupposes that level of representation.
Record verification notes
Before relying on this decision, confirm from the record which union concluded the union shop agreement and that it represented two thirds or more of the workers at the workplace on the date of the agreement, here 11 March 2016. Then fix, for each worker, when that worker joined the other union relative to the hiring date of 26 August 2017 and the dismissal of 26 December 2017, since the rule turns on already being a member at the time of hiring. Lastly, check whether the dismissal was in fact grounded on non-membership of the dominant union, as Article 23(1) of the Labour Standards Act requires just cause.
From the official text
Points at issue
유니온 숍 협정의 인적 효력 범위 및 신규로 입사한 근로자가 지배적 노동조합에 대한 가입 및 탈퇴 절차를 별도로 경유하지 않고 지배적 노동조합이 아닌 노동조합에 이미 가입한 경우, 사용자가 유니온 숍 협정을 들어 신규 입사 근로자를 해고할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
The scope of the personal effect of a union shop agreement, and whether, where a newly hired employee, without separately going through the procedure for joining and leaving the dominant labor union, has already joined a labor union that is not the dominant labor union, the employer may dismiss the newly hired employee by invoking the union shop agreement (negative)
Summary of the holding
헌법 제33조 제1항, 제11조 제1항, 제32조 제1항 전문, 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제5조 본문, 제81조 제2호, 근로기준법 제23조 제1항 등 관련 법령의 문언과 취지 등을 함께 고려하면, 근로자에게는 단결권 행사를 위해 가입할 노동조합을 스스로 선택할 자유가 헌법상 기본권으로 보장되고, 나아가 근로자가 지배적 노동조합에 가입하지 않거나 그 조합원 지위를 상실하는 경우 사용자로 하여금 그 근로자와의 근로관계를 종료시키도록 하는 내용의 유니온 숍 협정이 체결되었더라도 지배적 노동조합이 가진 단결권과 마찬가지로 유니온 숍 협정을 체결하지 않은 다른 노동조합의 단결권도 동등하게 존중되어야 한다. 유니온 숍 협정이 가진 목적의 정당성을 인정하더라도, 지배적 노동조합이 체결한 유니온 숍 협정은 사용자를 매개로 한 해고의 위협을 통해 지배적 노동조합에 가입하도록 강제한다는 점에서 허용 범위가 제한적일 수밖에 없다. 이러한 점들을 종합적으로 고려하면, 근로자의 노동조합 선택의 자유 및 지배적 노동조합이 아닌 노동조합의 단결권이 침해되는 경우에까지 지배적 노동조합이 사용자와 체결한 유니온 숍 협정의 효력을 그대로 인정할 수는 없고, 유니온 숍 협정의 효력은 근로자의 노동조합 선택의 자유 및 지배적 노동조합이 아닌 노동조합의 단결권이 영향을 받지 아니하는 근로자, 즉 어느 노동조합에도 가입하지 아니한 근로자에게만 미친다. 따라서 신규로 입사한 근로자가 노동조합 선택의 자유를 행사하여 지배적 노동조합이 아닌 노동조합에 이미 가입한 경우에는 유니온 숍 협정의 효력이 해당 근로자에게까지 미친다고 볼 수 없고, 비록 지배적 노동조합에 대한 가입 및 탈퇴 절차를 별도로 경유하지 아니하였더라도 사용자가 유니온 숍 협정을 들어 신규 입사 근로자를 해고하는 것은 정당한 이유가 없는 해고로서 무효로 보아야 한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal are borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
헌법 제11조 제1항, 제32조 제1항, 제33조 제1항, 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제5조, 제81조 제2호, 근로기준법 제23조 제1항
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