부당해고재심신청기각처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a foundation that ordinarily employs approximately 80 workers and operates eight social welfare facilities entrusted, such as the “E Welfare Center” located in Pyeongtaek-si D (hereinafter “instant welfare center”) and the “F Center” (hereinafter “instant center”).
Plaintiff (G) is a person who was enrolled in the Intervenor on November 3, 2014 and served as the head of the instant welfare center and the head of the instant center by September 10, 2018.
B. On September 5, 2018, the Intervenor’s first instance disciplinary committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the following disciplinary grounds are recognized, and the written grounds for disciplinary action formulated by the first instance disciplinary committee include the following:
On September 7, 2018, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the dismissal of the Intervenor as of September 10, 2018.
(1) On April 22, 2016, the Plaintiff referred to as “instant disposition” in relation to the reduction of the period of child care leave and displeasure expressions for pregnant workers on April 22, 2016. The act of arbitrarily imposing a burden on pregnant employees is not in compliance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and regulations (hereinafter “the ground for disciplinary action 1”). 2) The Plaintiff, as follows, took advantage of the position at the time of the employee training, forced the employees to drink and uneasiblely gather the employees using the position at the time of the employee training (hereinafter “the ground for disciplinary action 2-1”) on August 18, 2017, 2017, the Plaintiff instructed the instant welfare center to engage in the work without any relation to the welfare center.
(hereinafter “Grounds for Disciplinary Action 2-2”) D. C. 12, 2017, a female employee’s speech that “neither her son nor her son but her son her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her