부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. On May 4, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief against unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.
1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;
A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person operating the Dental Medical Care Center (hereinafter “instant Medical Care Center”), which is a medical care institution for older persons, with 41 regular workers employed in the Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-si.
From June 19, 2009, the Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) served as a caregiver at the Medical Care Center of this case as a caregiver.
B. On October 27, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor on September 25, 2015 that the Intervenor dismissed the Intervenor as of November 1, 2015 on the ground that “the Intervenor’s act of satisfing the head and ear of E admitted on September 25, 2015 (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) constituted elder abuse.”
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”) C.
On November 3, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy to the effect that “the instant disciplinary dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices.” On December 28, 2015, the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the Intervenor’s application for remedy against unfair dismissal, and dismissed the application for remedy against unfair dismissal on the ground that “The statement by the CCTV video and F alone is insufficient to recognize the facts that the Intervenor committed the instant misconduct. Therefore, the dismissal of the instant disciplinary dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant disciplinary dismissal constitutes unfair labor practices.”
On February 5, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the cited portion of the application for unfair dismissal among the above determination, filed an application for reexamination seeking revocation of the relevant part with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on May 4, 2016 on the same ground as the above determination.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [This case’s ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap’s 3 through 10, Eul’s 3 and 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. According to the statement of witness F and CCTV images of the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Intervenor’s instant misconduct is recognized.