부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff is a person who was employed by the intervenor on February 1, 2008 and was in charge of the operation of the excursion cars in the marina room in Msansan area.
On February 5, 2018, the intervenor transferred the plaintiff to the Ulsan Ships' Office, and had the plaintiff take charge of the preparation of documents without direct contact with the transportation articles, management of transportation expenses, etc.
Since then, the intervenor demanded the plaintiff to resign on the ground that he did not follow the company's instructions, but the plaintiff notified the plaintiff on July 19, 2018 that he was dismissed as of August 20, 2018.
On August 22, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the dismissal was unfair and applied for remedy to the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission.
On August 28, 2018 and August 31, 2018, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that he will be reinstated to the Ulsan Shiphouse by September 4, 2018.
(hereinafter “instant order of reinstatement.” On September 3, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a written withdrawal of the instant application for relief from unfair dismissal, but did not appear at work on the ground that it would not be meaningful if the Plaintiff was not reinstated due to the Marin, 2018.
On November 29, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted as D that “The Intervenor transferred the Plaintiff to the Ulsan District Labor Relations Commission on February 5, 2018, and then dismissed the Plaintiff on August 20, 2018, and then re-reconvening the Plaintiff to the Ulsan District Labor Relations Commission to the Ulsan District Labor Relations Commission was any unfavorable measure made on September 4, 2018, and all it should be deemed null and void on the ground that there are no justifiable grounds.”
On January 24, 2019, the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission issued a first inquiry court rejecting the plaintiff's request for remedy on the ground that the period of exclusion of the request for remedy was expired with respect to the transfer of the plaintiff on February 5, 2018, and dismissal on August 20, 2018, and the reinstatement on September 4, 2018 is not a disadvantage measure, and thus the reinstatement cannot be a subject of the request for remedy.
On February 11, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed and applied for a review to the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission on April 2019.