부당노동행위구제재심판정취소
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.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) employs ten full-time workers, and is engaged in the steel-frame processing, manufacturing, and sales business, etc., and the Plaintiff joined the Plaintiff on December 2, 2013 and served as the chief of the team.
B. On October 20, 2014, the Intervenor Company ordered the Plaintiff to issue a standby order in accordance with Article 13, 23, 73, and 74 of the Rules of Employment on the ground that the Plaintiff “the Plaintiff had expressed his desire to his superior. The Plaintiff used an unfaithful language to the representative and threatened him. The Plaintiff refused the request to submit the horses.”
C. On November 12, 2014, the Intervenor Company held a disciplinary committee and resolved two months of suspension from office against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 13 subparag. 10, Article 23 subparag. 1 and subparag. 10 of the Rules of Employment regarding the Plaintiff’s act of misconduct listed below. On November 13, 2014, the Intervenor Company imposed two months of suspension from office against the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant suspension from office.” On August 11, 2014, the Plaintiff made a serious abusive and verbal abuse to the director of the workplace C division in relation to the handling of occupational injuries during the course of the inquiry. On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff made a serious abusive and verbal abuse, such as: (a) the director of the C division, who would hold a personnel committee in relation to the said abusive language, etc.; and (b) the director of the C division, at the time of the inquiry, laid off a hump to the head of the C division, and “to die by inserting.”
(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”. On August 28, 2014, and September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff threatened D (D is the actual manager of the Intervenor Company, and currently registered as the representative director of the Intervenor Company, but E was recorded as the representative director at that time) that the Intervenor Company abused the employee’s personal information regarding the purchase of the employee’s accident insurance on behalf of his/her employees, and thereby threatening D to the relevant agency.
On August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff, while making D and D calls, went against D.