차별시정 재심판정취소 청구의 소
1. On July 14, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission is a national university corporate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor, which is the central 2015 discrimination A.
The plaintiff in the course of the decision on reexamination is a corporation established on December 28, 201 pursuant to the Act on the Establishment and Operation of A, a National University Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "A"), which carries out projects, such as fostering human resources, for the purpose of contributing to the development of the State and contributing to the prosperity of human beings by using approximately two thousand eight hundred full-time workers, and contributing to the prosperity of human beings. The intervenor joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "participating") is a person who was employed in the A Art Gallery, a supplementary facility of the plaintiff on October 7, 2013 and worked
An intervenor filed an application for correction with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on February 6, 2015, asserting that the Plaintiff’s unfavorable treatment against an intervenor compared to the corporate employees of the Plaintiff, constitutes discriminatory treatment prohibited under Article 8 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “fixed-Term Act”). The purport of the application was to change the purport of the application to “the Plaintiff’s payment of monetary compensation in total 21,026,272 won, in comparison with the corporate employees conducting accounting affairs from December 1, 2013 to April 6, 2015, the Plaintiff paid unfavorable pay to the intervenors, and the payment of basic pay, good-time allowance, performance bonus, performance bonus, fixed-term meal allowance, full-time leave allowance, and customized welfare expenses is discriminatory treatment.” The Plaintiff changed the purport of the application to “the Plaintiff’s payment of monetary compensation in total 201,026,272 won.”
The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s motion on April 6, 2015 on the ground that there is no comparable workers engaged in the same or similar work.
On April 30, 2015, an intervenor appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on April 30, 2015, and the same year.
6. 24. 24. A submitted a written reasons for review to select C/D as a comparable worker who conducts a letter work at the headquarters A.
The National Labor Relations Commission on July 14, 2015 that the comparable workers designated by the Intervenor are those engaged in the same or similar work as the Intervenor.