부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit include all costs incurred by participation.
1. The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if Gap evidence 1-1-2, Eul evidence 1-1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings is shown in evidence 1-1.
An intervenor employs ten full-time workers and operates a general restaurant that sells swine ties, etc. with the trade name of C from February 15, 2008 (hereinafter “instant restaurant”). On June 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the intervenor (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) and worked as the main kitchen of the instant restaurant.
B. On October 1, 2013, the Intervenor, via the head of the main office of the instant restaurant, sent a notice to the Plaintiff, stating that “the Plaintiff would not work from the day to day” (hereinafter “instant notice”).
C. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul 2013da3418; hereinafter “instant application for remedy from the early heart Labor Relations Commission”), and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on January 21, 2014.
On February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission as to the Central Labor Relations Commission on February 4, 2014. On April 14, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that “The instant employment contract was terminated by agreement on September 26, 2013, and thus, the instant notification cannot be deemed an act of notification of dismissal. Even if the validity of the instant employment contract is maintained, the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination was dismissed on the ground that the Intervenor did not continue to work even if the Intervenor was to work on October 1, 2013, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was unfair.”
(hereinafter “instant review decision”) . 2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (i) The Plaintiff is difficult to work in the instant restaurant, and the Plaintiff would employ the Plaintiff’s successor to the first patrolman on September 2013.