부당정직 구제 재심판정 취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including those resulting from the participation in the lawsuit.
1. The grounds for the decision of retrial stating the purport of the request (hereinafter “the decision of retrial of this case”)
A. On September 16, 201, the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff and promoted from the ordinary course of business on October 7, 2011 to the Non-registration pre-registration, and on March 13, 2019, the Plaintiff revised some phrases and divided the sentences to the Intervenor in order to help the Intervenor understand the purport stated in the next letter box, and, if necessary, took the bottom for stressing.
The transfer of the contents of the evidence not exceeding hereinafter shall also be made in all cases.
The grounds for the same disciplinary action (hereinafter referred to as “instant disciplinary action”) were 15 days of suspension from office (hereinafter referred to as “suspension from office”).
The intervenor confirmed that the FY2016 performance evaluation was prepared by personnel evaluation.
Nevertheless, without objective evidence, the vice president in charge of HR spreads false facts to the factory head of the Ulsan Factory.
HR team sent e-mail to the behavior where the HR team saws false words in the Auds column, and sent some of its executives and employees e-mail that “the false words of the vice president and personnel team in charge of HR are not entirely new because they had been experienced in the judgment of the Labor Relations Commission at all times because the false words of the president and personnel team had already been experienced in the judgment of the Labor Relations Commission.”
The intervenor sent an e-mail that slanders a personnel team and a specific person, not only objectively informing the legitimacy of the intervenor, but also gives him/her e-mail irrelevant to his/her performance evaluation.
This is an act that damages the reputation of a specific person and the trust in the personnel team beyond the permissible scope in light of social norms.
The e-mail at issue in the grounds for the instant disciplinary action refers to the e-mail sent by the intervenor on June 1, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “3-A, 8-9”) respectively.
B. The Intervenor filed an application for remedy against unfair suspension with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Seoul Branch Labor Relations Commission”), but the Seoul Branch Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on July 17, 2019.
An intervenor.