earticle

영어

This paper is on explanatory note about a judicial decision of the court. The court judged not as the pay compensation of work but as the wage by reason of status of full-time union official. On the assumption that the legal position of the full-time union official is similar to under suspension from work conditions, the money which is paid by employer does not pay.
It is no problem that the money which is paid by employer does not pay, as long as the legal position of the full-time union official is similar to under suspension from work conditions. The collective agreement which is contracted between labor union and employer do not refer to whether pay or not to the full-time union official during strike period but refer to wages level. There is no ground that in case the principle of no work no payment apply to the union member this collective agrement prescribe that as a effect of applying the principle of no work no payment wage is not paid during strike period. The court decided that in strike period to pay the wages to the full-time union official is not reasonable. but the court do not explain sufficiently the reason that the rightfulness does not recognized.
The affairs of the full-time union official include not only daily affairs of union but also to bargaining collectively and to planning the strike when fail in collective bargain. consequently, we can consider that during strike period the union member who participate in strike is not working but full-time union official does his affairs. l would not agree with the view that in during strike period when we deliberate relation of union members, to pay the wages to full-time union official ignore the principle of equity.