본문내용 바로가기

CASE RESULTS

[ Administrative_Law ][SUPREME COURT] Revocation of Readjudication on Relief Request for Unfair Labor Practice
2020.04.08

Supreme Court Decision 2019Du33712 Decided June 13, 2019 

【Revocation of Readjudication on Relief Request for Unfair Labor Practice】

대법원 2019. 6. 13. 선고 2019두33712 판결 [부당노동행위구제처분취소등]

 

【Main Issues and Holdings】 판시사항

[1] Standard and method of determining whether a person constitutes a worker under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

[1] 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법상 근로자에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준과 방법

 

[2] In the case where Party A, the head of an automobile dealership, terminated a car sales service agreement with Party B and others who worked as car masters (salespersons) at his agency, the car masters including Party B and Trade Union C in which Party B and others were joined as members made an application to the Labor Relations Commission for remedies for unfair labor practices on grounds that Party A’s termination of contract and the act of persuading its car masters to withdraw from trade union membership constituted unfair labor practices, the case holding that the car masters including Party B, who are the members of Trade Union C, constituted a worker under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

[2] 자동차 판매대리점주 갑이 자신의 대리점에서 카마스터(car master, 자동차 판매원)로 근무하던 을 등과 자동차 판매용역계약을 해지하자, 을 등 카마스터들과 을 등이 속한 병 노동조합이 갑의 계약 해지와 노동조합 탈퇴 종용행위가 부당노동행위에 해당한다는 이유로 노동위원회에 구제신청을 한 사안에서, 병 노동조합 소속 조합원인 을 등 카마스터들은 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법상 근로자에 해당한다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례

 

【Summary of Decision】 판결요지

[1] The Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) states that a trade union is formed under the workers’ initiative (the main text of Article 2 Subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act) and defines a worker as “any person who lives on wages, a salary, or any other income equivalent thereto, regardless of the person’s occupation” (Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act). Under the Trade Union Act, a worker is referred to as a person who is in a subordinate employment relationship with an employer, engages in labor in exchange for wages on which to subsist; insofar as there exists some form of a subordinate employment relationship with an employer, whether the agreement to provide labor is concluded in the form of an employment, task-based, mandate, or nameless contract is irrelevant. Specifically whether a person constitutes a worker under the Trade Union Act ought to be determined by comprehensively considering the following: (a) whether income of a person who provides labor (hereinafter “labor provider”) is reliant on a certain business entity; (b) whether a certain business entity to which labor is provided unilaterally decides on the terms and conditions of a contract, including on wages, concluded with a labor provider; (c) whether a labor provider enters the market via a certain business entity’s business by providing labor indispensable for the operation of the business owned by that certain business entity; (d) whether the legal relation between a labor provider and a certain business entity is deemed considerably continuous and exclusive; (e) whether the supervisory-subordinate relationship exists to a certain degree between an employer and a labor provider; and (f) whether wage and pay a labor provider receives from a certain business entity are the compensation for its provision of labor.

The Trade Union Act was enacted to maintain and improve the working conditions of workers and enhance their economic and social status by guaranteeing the rights of association, collective bargaining, and collective action (hereinafter “three labor rights”) (Article 1), whose purpose and contents of regulation are different from that of the Labor Standards Act enacted to regulate individual employment relations. Taking into account the legislative purpose and the definition provision on workers under the Trade Union Act, determination on whether a person constitutes a “worker” as prescribed in the Trade Union Act should be made from the perspective of whether there exists a need for protecting the three labor rights in light of the substance of the relationship of providing labor, and does not have to be limitedly interpreted within the meaning of a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act.

[1] 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법(이하 ‘노동조합법’이라 한다)은 근로자가 노동조합의 주체라고 명시하고(노동조합법 제2조 제4호 본문), 근로자에 관하여 직업의 종류를 묻지 않고 임금·급료 그 밖에 이에 준하는 수입으로 생활하는 사람이라고 정의하고 있다(노동조합법 제2조 제1호). 노동조합법상 근로자는 사용자와 사용종속관계에 있으면서 노무에 종사하고 대가로 임금 그 밖의 수입을 받아 생활하는 사람을 말하고, 사용자와 사용종속관계가 있는 한 노무제공계약이 고용, 도급, 위임, 무명계약 등 어느 형태이든 상관없다. 구체적으로 노동조합법상 근로자에 해당하는지는 노무제공자의 소득이 주로 특정 사업자에게 의존하고 있는지, 노무를 제공받는 특정 사업자가 보수를 비롯하여 노무제공자와 체결하는 계약 내용을 일방적으로 결정하는지, 노무제공자가 특정 사업자의 사업 수행에 필수적인 노무를 제공함으로써 특정 사업자의 사업을 통해서 시장에 접근하는지, 노무제공자와 특정 사업자의 법률관계가 상당한 정도로 지속적·전속적인지, 사용자와 노무제공자 사이에 어느 정도 지휘·감독관계가 존재하는지, 노무제공자가 특정 사업자로부터 받는 임금·급료 등 수입이 노무 제공의 대가인지 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단하여야 한다.

노동조합법은 헌법에 의한 근로자의 노동3권을 보장하여 근로조건의 유지·개선과 근로자의 경제적·사회적 지위 향상을 도모하는 것 등을 목적으로 제정된 것으로(제1조), 개별적 근로관계를 규율하기 위해 제정된 근로기준법과는 목적과 규율 내용이 다르다. 이러한 노동조합법의 입법 목적과 근로자에 대한 정의 규정 등을 고려하면, 노동조합법상 근로자에 해당하는지는 노무제공관계의 실질에 비추어 노동3권을 보장할 필요성이 있는지라는 관점에서 판단하여야 하고, 반드시 근로기준법상 근로자에 한정되는 것은 아니다.

 

[2] In the case where Party A, the head of an automobile dealership, terminated a car sales service agreement with Party B and others who worked as car masters (salespersons) at his agency, the car masters including Party B and Trade Union C in which Party B and others were joined as members made an application to the Labor Relations Commission for remedies for unfair labor practices on grounds that Party A’s termination of contract and the act of persuading its car masters to withdraw from trade union membership constituted unfair labor practices, the Court held as follows: (a) car masters’ major source of income consisted of sales benefit and incentives received from Party A; (b) Party A prepared in advance a car sales service agreement in a standardized format to conclude a car sales service agreement with the car masters; (c) labor that the car masters provided was indispensable for Party A’s operation of his automobile dealership; (d) the car masters have concluded a car sales service agreement with Party A over the course of several years in a continuous and exclusive manner; (e) considering the circumstances that (i) the car masters have been managed under a hierarchical structure with their attendance checked, (ii) a standard work protocol has been delivered to the car masters, (iii) the sales goals were established, and (iv) the car masters received sales-related orders and training, Party A can be deemed to have exerted supervisory control over the car masters; (f) sales benefit or incentives the car masters received from Party A are seen as the compensation for the act of selling cars, which is the labor provided by the car masters; (g) even if the car masters may be in a way viewed as an independent business entity, because they sell cars produced by other manufacturers, inasmuch as the car masters are both economically and institutionally dependent upon Party A, it is necessary to guarantee the three labor rights for the car masters so that they could decide on the terms and conditions of the agreement to provide labor on an equal footing; (h) comprehensively taking account of the foregoing circumstances, the lower court determined that the car masters including Party B, who are the members of Trade Union C, were deemed as a “worker” under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and such determination of the lower court was justifiable.

[2] 자동차 판매대리점주 갑이 자신의 대리점에서 카마스터(car master, 자동차 판매원)로 근무하던 을 등과 자동차 판매용역계약을 해지하자, 을 등 카마스터들과 을 등이 속한 병 노동조합이 갑의 계약 해지와 노동조합 탈퇴 종용행위가 부당노동행위에 해당한다는 이유로 노동위원회에 구제신청을 한 사안에서, 카마스터들의 주된 소득원은 갑에게서 받은 판매수당과 인센티브 등인 점, 갑이 미리 마련한 정형화된 형식의 자동차 판매용역계약서를 이용하여 카마스터들과 자동차 판매용역계약을 체결한 점, 카마스터들이 제공하는 노무는 갑의 자동차 판매대리점을 운영하는 데 필수적인 것인 점, 카마스터들은 여러 해에 걸쳐서 갑과 전속적·지속적으로 자동차 판매용역계약을 체결해 온 점, 카마스터들에 대한 직급체계와 근태관리, 표준업무지침 하달, 판매목표 설정, 영업 관련 지시나 교육 등이 이루어진 사정을 종합하면 갑이 카마스터들을 지휘·감독해 왔다고 평가할 수 있는 점, 카마스터들이 갑에게서 받은 판매수당이나 인센티브는 카마스터들이 갑에게 제공한 노무인 차량 판매행위의 대가라고 볼 수 있는 점, 카마스터들이 다른 회사 자동차도 판매하는 등 독립사업자의 성격을 가지고 있더라도, 갑과 경제적·조직적 종속관계가 있는 이상, 카마스터들에게 대등한 지위에서 노무제공계약의 내용을 결정할 수 있도록 노동3권을 보장할 필요가 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 병 노동조합 소속 조합원인 을 등 카마스터들은 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법상 근로자에 해당한다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례.

 

【Disposition】 주문

The final appeal is dismissed. The cost of the final appeal, including the portion related to the Intervenor joining the Defendant, shall be assessed against the Plaintiff.

상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 보조참가로 인한 부분을 포함하여 원고가 부담한다.

 

Reference

Supreme Court Library of Korea 2012 <https://library.scourt.go.kr>