부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. On July 30, 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief to unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.
1. The details of the decision on reexamination shall employ at least 700 full-time workers in the Plaintiff’s business, and the defendant’s supplementary intervenor (hereinafter referred to as “participating”) who engages in urban development and environment-related business, etc. is employed;
1. A on April 6, 1994, belonging to the Headquarters C Team;
2. B On December 23, 1995, disciplinary action date belonging to the membership D Team on November 8, 201, respectively (hereinafter “instant dismissal”), and disciplinary action grounds for discipline (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).
1. A habitually gambling;
2. The Intervenor’s “Habitual Gambling” in the first instance trial court for the grant of the Intervenor’s request for remedy against the Intervenor’s habitual gambling loan constitutes a ground for disciplinary action, but the Plaintiff’s request for disciplinary action was made after the statute of limitations expired. Thus, each of the grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s request for review (see evidence A No. 18; hereinafter “instant review decision”), although the grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s request for review (see evidence A; hereinafter “instant review decision”), the Intervenor’s “Habitual gambling” and “money transaction” of the Intervenor A cannot be deemed a ground for disciplinary action due to the lapse of the statute of limitations, and the dismissal of the Intervenor’s “Habitual gambling” as the grounds for disciplinary action does not conflict with grounds for recognition of excessive disciplinary action, Gap’s statement in evidence No. 17, and 18, and the purport of the entire
2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 grounds for disciplinary action were met from May 25, 2003 to January 10, 2010 by the Intervenor A, and the Intervenor B was habitually gambling for a long time from May 25, 2003 to September 18, 2009. During that process, the Intervenor B loaned money to the public company employees for gambling. Such misconduct by the Intervenor is not only a violation of the Plaintiff’s duty to maintain good faith and the duty to maintain dignity, but also a violation of the code of conduct and the code of ethics among employees, and constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.
Furthermore, the Intervenor B’s habitual gambling is the last day, September 18, 2009.