부당전보구제재심판정취소
All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
The costs of lawsuit, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;
A. On April 1, 1997, Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B joined the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor’s Intervenor”) on May 18, 1998, and worked at the E Hospital operated by the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s E Hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”).
Plaintiff
C joined the intervenor corporation on May 26, 1995 and served in the medical records team from July 2001 to the examination department of the hospital of this case, from July 14, 2001 to October 15, 2001, and from October 15, 2001 to the medical records team.
The Plaintiffs are members of the F Medical Center of the National Health and Medical Workers’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Trade Union”).
B. The Intervenor is a school juristic person that employs approximately 2,90 full-time workers and operates four hospitals, such as universities and the instant hospital, etc.
C. On April 12, 2016, the Intervenor: (a) issued a personnel order to transfer the Plaintiffs and G working at the Medical Records Team of the instant hospital to the Nursing Bureau as of May 1, 2016 (hereinafter “instant transfer”). D.
On April 22, 2016, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant transfer was unfair and applied for remedy to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.
On June 20, 2016, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to accept an application for remedy with the purport that the transfer of this case constitutes unfair transfer.
E. On July 28, 2016, the Intervenor filed an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission for a review seeking revocation of the determination of the said Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.
On October 26, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked its ruling of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on the purport that the transfer of this case is justifiable, and made a decision to dismiss all the plaintiffs' applications for remedy (hereinafter referred to as the "decision on reexamination of this case").
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful
A. The plaintiffs' arguments are related to the duties performed by the mandatory recording team.