부당노동행위구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.
The Plaintiff is a non-profit incorporated association that conducts business such as prevention, counseling, and improvement of family problems established on June 9, 2008, and its affiliated agency designated as a child care service provider under the Child Care Support Act (hereinafter “Act”), and has established the Seo-gu Busan Healthy Family Support Center (hereinafter “instant center”).
An intervenor is a national trade union established on March 9, 2009, with 190 child care providers of the instant center.
For the same year as of January 7, 2015, the Intervenor and the instant Center request the Intervenor to conduct collective bargaining to conclude wages and collective agreements with the instant Center in 2015 and the Intervenor and the instant Center request the Intervenor to conduct collective bargaining to conclude collective bargaining with the instant Center.
3.3. The negotiations were conducted twice.
On April 3, 2015, the instant center requested an intervenor to suspend collective bargaining until a final and conclusive notice of whether the child care provider’s worker is a child care provider’s employee, etc. in a petition case related to the delayed payment of money and goods. On April 7, 2015, the instant center again requested the intervenor to suspend collective bargaining until the results of the investigation conducted by the competent Labor Agency on whether the child care provider and the center are recognized as a subordinate employment relationship.
On April 10, 2015, the Intervenor requested the instant center to conduct the third collective bargaining. However, the instant center, on April 21, 201, sent a reply to the purport that the instant center was unable to comply with the Intervenor’s request for bargaining because it was not an employer under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”), since it was not an institution that performs support duties and has no authority to determine the remuneration, etc. of child care providers.
An intervenor requested the second collective bargaining on June 9, 2015, but the same year.
6. 15. The Center received a reply to the above purport.
An intervenor in the first inquiry tribunal of the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission is justified by the plaintiff (the center of this case).