부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;
A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was established on March 24, 201, and was engaged in the production and sales of English education content. The Plaintiff joined the Intervenor as the head of the business planning team on November 11, 2013 and served as a director from July 1, 2014.
B. On November 28, 2014, the Intervenor held a disciplinary committee and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff, and then sent to the Plaintiff a written notice of disciplinary action stating that “by dismissal as of December 1, 2014,” and a written reason for disciplinary action as follows.
No. 19) 'No. 19' is called the disciplinary action of this case.
. If the Disciplinary Committee considers that it is impracticable to maintain a normal employment due to the following grounds for disciplinary action, the dismissal of the plaintiff is deemed to be improper:
1. Violation of the duty of confidentiality by divulgence of trade secrets (Articles 7, 66 (7), 67 (1), (9), etc. of the Rules of Employment) (hereinafter referred to as "reasons for disciplinary action")
2. Violation of company policies and regulations, and interference with the business activities of employees and companies (Articles 66(4) and (7), 67(1) and (14), etc. of the Rules of Employment) (hereinafter referred to as "reasons for disciplinary action 2").
3. Abuse of authority (Articles 15, 66 (3), (4), (7), (11), and 67 (1) of the Rules of Employment (hereinafter referred to as "reasons for disciplinary action") (hereinafter referred to as "reasons for disciplinary action");
4. Management, supervision, failure to perform duties (Articles 66 (7) and 67 (1) of the Rules of Employment, etc.) (hereinafter referred to as "reasons for disciplinary action")
C. On December 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against the instant disciplinary action with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on February 3, 2015.
On March 4, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on April 30, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 19, 39 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. The plaintiff is a procedural defect.