부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from participation.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. On November 15, 2016, the Intervenor entered into a fixed-term employment contract with the Plaintiff from November 15, 2016 to October 14, 2017 (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) with the term of labor as the members of the instant trade union, and from November 15, 2016 to October 14, 2017 (hereinafter “instant employment contract”). From that time, the Intervenor, at the Daegu Metropolitan City Council of Council (hereinafter “Council”), performed duties such as managing civil petition offices, such as cleaning civil petition offices, receiving documents, and guiding civil petitioners to visit (hereinafter “instant duties”).
B. On October 15, 2017, the Plaintiff did not renew his/her employment contract with the Intervenor for whom the instant period of employment expired, and thereafter notified the Intervenor that the Intervenor will open to the public without concluding a renewal contract with the Intervenor on December 2, 2017.
C. On October 15, 2017, the Intervenor and the instant trade union asserted that the termination disposition of the contract made by the Plaintiff on October 15, 2017 constituted unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission as of November 16, 2017.
On January 8, 2018, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss all the application for remedy on the ground that “the intervenor is not entitled to renew the instant labor contract.”
On February 1, 2018, the Intervenor and the instant trade union were dissatisfied with the aforementioned initial inquiry tribunal, and filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission under the Central 2018 fathera-Ma131/Ma22. On March 30, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the relevant part of the said initial inquiry tribunal on the ground that “the Intervenor is entitled to renew the instant labor contract to the Intervenor, and there is no reasonable ground for the Plaintiff’s failure to renew the said labor contract,” and ruled to refer to this part of the request for remedy.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). . [Ground for recognition] . [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, and Eul evidence No. 1 shall include the number, below.