2. Of the costs of the lawsuit, the costs incurred by the intervention in the defendant's assistance shall be borne by the defendant's intervenor and the remainder by the defendant.

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statements Nos. 3, 4-1, 2, 10, 10, 10, 17, and evidence Nos. 3, 4-1, 4-2, and 17.

A. On January 31, 1991, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor’s Intervenor Company (hereinafter the Intervenor Company) as a bus driver, and was subject to disciplinary action on August 14, 1995 on the ground that the Intervenor Company received the passenger fare in cash unfairly from the Intervenor Company on August 10, 1995.

B. Accordingly, on August 25, 1995, the Plaintiff filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Regional Labor Relations Commission that the above dismissal was unfair, and on September 26, 1995, Jeonnam-do Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the above dismissal was an unfair dismissal without justifiable grounds, and thus, “1. The instant application shall be recognized as unfair dismissal. 2. The respondent shall immediately be reinstated to the original position and pay the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been received during the period of the dismissal.”

C. On October 13, 1995, the intervenor company dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and applied for reexamination to the defendant on October 13, 1995, and on November 14, 1995, the defendant judged that the above dismissal was a justifiable dismissal and revoked the first instance decision on November 14, 1995.

2. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful.

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's assertion is summarized as follows.

First, even if the intervenor company entered into a wage agreement in 1995 with the intervenor company's trade union (hereinafter "trade union") on August 3, 1995 that the driver cannot receive the fare in cash during operation, the participant company failed to prepare for recovery in lightyang city where the recovery right selling place falls short, and the driver company is unable to pay the fare in cash because there are many passengers in cash. At the time of the participant company, the participant company was also preparing for the remaining money at the low level at the demand of the driver, and the employee in charge of night duty was preparing for the remaining money at night, and the remaining money was preparing for the remaining money at night. The participant company had to install plastic partitions between the driver's seat and cash delivery in order to prevent the receipt of cash. However, the participant company did not have received the reason for the disciplinary action from the passenger at the time of the plaintiff's flight.

Second, even if the plaintiff was in possession of 4,00 won in cash in violation of the above wage agreement, the plaintiff had faithfully worked for the participant company to account for 3rd degree of profit evaluation, and did not violate the rules of the company only once during the intervenor company's working period, and received to change the money to the passenger's name without the intention of embezzlement, and the dismissal of the bus is an abuse of the right to discipline if considering the situation of operation of the bus that has no choice but to receive cash.

Third, the Intervenor Company was dismissed, which is the most severe disciplinary action, because the Plaintiff is working as a representative of the labor union even though there is no or minor grounds for disciplinary action such as the foregoing disciplinary action. Thus, the above dismissal is an unfair labor practice.

(2) The defendant's assertion

As a result of the analysis, the Defendant concluded the wage agreement in 1995 that 20 through 30% of transport earnings were embezzled to drivers by the end of each month by 194, and applied for the prevention of omission of transport earnings, instead of raising the driver’s wages at a level of 33% compared to the previous year even though there is no significant increase in the wage negotiation between the labor union on August 3, 1995, the Defendant asserted that the driver’s wages can not be combined with the check during the terminal and operation and the receipt of cash at the same time as the dismissal, and that the driver’s wages can be filed at the same time as the dismissal for the violation, and then sent to the 14th day of the same month a letter of legitimate representative director’s request to comply with the above wage agreement to the previous worker, and posted to the Intervenor’s union president’s notice on the same month, and the Plaintiff also posted the notice on the bulletin board of the labor union at least 10% of the same month to the left end of the 14th day.

(b) recognized facts;

In full view of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9-2, 4, 20, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3-1 through 4, the number of witnesses correction, and some testimony of Kim Byung-il which are contrary to the above recognition, the following facts can be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings. Nos. 6, 7, 14, each of the statements of Nos. 6, 14, witness Kim Byung-il, and all of the testimonys of Park Dong-dong constitution against the above recognition, there is no counter-proof, unless it is trusted.

(1) At around 14:10 on August 10, 1995, the Plaintiff, while driving the seat bus of the Intervenor company, was placed in the water network located on the left side of the driver's seat with the passenger's right of 1,000 won in cash at the optical-dong branch in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-si, the Plaintiff was exposed to the non-party Kim vice-resident, who is the chief operating officer of the Intervenor company.

(2) On August 3, 1995, the Intervenor Company concluded the wage agreement in 1995 with the content that the driver’s wages are increased by about 33% compared to the previous year, and that driver’s wages cannot be conducted during the season, terminal, and operation and that it may be charged at the same time with the violation of this agreement (Article 27). On the 5th of the same month, the Intervenor sent a letter of notice to the representative director stating that the above agreement should be complied with with with with, and posted a letter of public notice on the 9th of the same month. On the 7th of the same month, the Intervenor also posted a notice to the effect that the above agreement is enforced on the 1st of the same month.

(3) Article 21 of the collective agreement concluded on May 12, 1994 between the intervenor company and the trade union provides warning, reprimand, salary reduction, suspension, and dismissal as a kind of disciplinary action. Article 34 of the Rules of Employment provides that the time when a person seeks to make an objection using his/her duties as a ground for dismissal.

(4) However, until August 10, 1995, the Intervenor Company did not repair the replacement machine inside the seat bus and did not install plastic partitions to prevent the gap between the boarding engineer and the fare box.

(5) In the lightyang city, a local sub-urban area, there are many passengers boarding the bus with cash, and the driver of the city bus does not refuse the demand of the passengers to return the cash amount due to the above partitions that prevents the space between the passengers. In fact, the driver of the intervenor company prepares for a set of approximately KRW 5,000 when the vehicle was operated as of August 10, 1995, and the remaining money was returned to the shift engineer after returning the bus amount to the passengers. The participant company recognized such circumstances and provided that the non-party Kim Jong-ju, who is an employee in charge, prepared and exchanged for a set of approximately KRW 50,000 as at the time of the driver's request, and had the employee in charge transferred the bus at night, and had the problem of the above disciplinary action against the plaintiff.

(6) On the 7th of the same month, the chief of a trade union also posted a public notice that the wage agreement was in force on the 1st of the same month for its members, and that operation was in the past before the partitions was installed, but as much as possible, at the end of receiving cash and requesting the passengers to prepare boarding tickets in advance.

(7) On August 10, 1995, the plaintiff also driven a seat bus at around 14:10 on August 10, 1995, and possessed a seat ticket of KRW 5,000 or a high right of KRW 10,000 by obtaining four tickets from the passenger, or in order to use it as a seat money from the company, and there is a concern that it might be on the wind during operation, and placed it inside the left-hand side of the driver's seat without being placed adjacent to the charge. The passengers who are sitting on the rear seat of the driver's seat may easily see the above water network proposal.

(8) The Plaintiff did not have any disciplinary action since the joining of the Intervenor company, and had three of the total articles with the revenue record.

C. Determination of party members

On the other hand, in the case of disciplinary dismissal for the justifiable reason stipulated in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, it means that there is a reason to be responsible for workers to the extent that it is not possible to continue the labor contract by social norms. Thus, the disciplinary dismissal cannot be viewed as a justifiable reason, and considering the specific circumstances, there is a justifiable reason for the disciplinary dismissal and disposition only when it is acknowledged that there is a justifiable reason as above (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da27518 delivered on May 12, 1992).

However, according to the above facts, since the plaintiff's act of receiving 4,00 won in cash from passengers was a ground for disciplinary action under Article 27 of the wage agreement of 1995, which was enforced from August 1, 1995, the plaintiff's assertion was without merit. However, the plaintiff's assertion was not reasonable. However, since the plaintiff's demand for the return of scambling money was not possible because the number of passengers with a boarding ticket sales office is small in light of the number of passengers, and there was a trouble or a trouble in the cash exchange system, it could not be prepared for scambling money because the plaintiff did not receive the above disciplinary action against the plaintiff for more than five years and six months since the plaintiff was unable to receive the above disciplinary action, it was recognized that the participant company had recognized such circumstances at the time and had the accounting officer or skilled employees exchange the scambling money at the request of the driver, and the president of the labor union also continued to be responsible for the plaintiff's act of receiving the above disciplinary action.

Therefore, without determining the remainder of the plaintiff's remaining arguments, the decision of the retrial of this case that revoked the decision of the first instance is unlawful, judging that the intervenor company's dismissal of disciplinary action against the plaintiff was justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Judge)