부당노동행위구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.
1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;
A. Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was established on January 26, 1984 and operated C golf courses with 120 full-time workers (hereinafter “instant golf courses”).
From 1996, the Plaintiff is a person who had been working as a Capitald (hereinafter “Game assistant”) at the instant golf course from around 199.
B. On July 15, 2012, the Intervenor’s staff member D terminated the Plaintiff’s sports assistant registration of the instant golf course on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant termination”).
The plaintiff has seriously damaged the external images of the golf course of this case, as well as seriously damaged the order of the golf course of this case through various illegal acts, such as the high desire, bathing, and employees' remarks at the Gyeonggi Field Office, the high level of difficulty and remarks at the arrangement room, the outdoor passage of the arrangement room, the atmosphere room, and the atmosphere room, the high level of desire and rioting in the waiting room, the illegal one person demonstration at the club dominium, the illegal attachment at least four times in total, and the abusive language against employees in the seminars room, and the abusive language, etc.
On October 10, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that “the termination of the instant case constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices against the Plaintiff by the Intervenor” (Seoul High Court Decision 2012JL 1395/Reno97).
On December 5, 2012, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the above application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the request for correction by the said Labor Relations Commission cannot grasp the factual relations concerning unfair labor practices.”
On December 21, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (Central 2012, Japan 1303/Reno 290).
The National Labor Relations Commission on March 11, 2013 shall be a worker under the Labor Standards Act.