Recently, confusion of ``the interested party`` with ``the party in charge`` in the course of collective bargaining has come up to the surface and caused many disputes: the so-called democratic trade unions, in order to prevent executive members of a trade union from making arbitrary decisions in the process of collective bargaining and being bought over to the management, stipulated expressly in the union regulation or collective agreements their own voting for authentication of the agreements made in advance between the representative of the trade union and the management, which is the self-governing right of the trade union provided for in the existing law; the economic organizations of employers, feeling uncomfortable with the new regulation of the trade union, raised an objection to the practice of authentication voting; the Ministry of Labor, accepting the complaint of the economic organizations, made out a guideline to control the voting scheme. The Ministry of Labor argues in the guideline that the union`s authentication voting is invalid as it restricts the authority of trade union representatives for making collective agreements as well as collective bargaining. It bas been argued that this administrative interpretation of the Ministry of Labor was made out of its mix-up over the principles of the labor law. The Ministry was criticized for failing to recognize the difference between the factual act of bargaining and the juristic act of making agreement and to interpret correctly the paragraph 1 of the Article 33 of the previous Trade Union Act. The Ministry attempted to make a legislative solution to the problem surrounding the authentication voting practice, but it cannot be a perfect device for denying the validity of the authentication voting of all union members. The Ministry may have intended, with the paragraph 1 of the Article 29 of the revised Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, to make the authentication voting invalid and prevent collective agreements made between the union representatives and the management from being defied later by the union members. The interpretation different from the legislative intention, however, can gain general acceptance thanks to the spirit of the Constitution to guarantee the workers` right of association. Moreover, a lot of trade unions are still holding on to the voting practice, but there has been less troubles caused by the practice than those by other disputes. Considering that there has been nolegal row over the voting scheme since the revision of the labor law, we can say that it is being established as a new procedure for all of the parties concerned. Even though the Supreme Court nullified the effect of the authentication voting, it seems to admit that neither of the two parties can reap the benefit from the troubles arising from collective agreements made by the union representative, but disapproved by union members. The lower courts made decisions on the case comparatively in accord with the principles of the labor law. Meanwhile the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court was made with little regard for the spirit of the Constitution and the labor law and can be seen almost as a decision for policy implementation rather than a legal one, which can lead to deteriorating the judicial justice and impeding the progress of precedents study. In brief, the Supreme Court, by justifying the intervention of the state and employers in workers` use of collective bargaining right, did damage to workers` autonomy in exercising the right of collective bargaining. On the other hand, we can expect a new leading case to appear for proper direction, as the precedents are changing and the judge-made law is not the primary source of law in our legal system. It is a matter of course that as the collective agreement is closely connected with workers` right to live, including working conditions, the opinion of union members collected through democratic procedure should be sprecially taken into account in the process of collective agreements conclusion. To sum up, the authentication voting practice should be viewed as valid, since union representatives` authority to make collective agreements is the kind of authority to be controlled. They have the status of substantial difference from those of a civil organization for private property in the civil law. It is a trade union that they represent, a special organization with its own autonomy and democracy to improve workers` standard of life and guarantee their human dignity. In this regard, it should be pointed out that their representative authority cannot be treated as the same one as the authority of those in a civil organization in the civil law.