부당해고 구제명령 처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit include the part resulting from the participation of the defendant intervenor.
1. Circumstances concerning the dismissal of disciplinary action and decision by reexamination;
A. The Plaintiff is a person operating the “D convalescent Hospital” (hereinafter “instant hospital”) in Seo-gu, Gwangju, and the Intervenor is a person employed at the instant hospital and worked as an assistant nurse on July 14, 2016.
B. On February 20, 2017, the Plaintiff, on the part of the Intervenor, informed the Intervenor of the content that the Intervenor immediately dismissed the Intervenor as of February 20, 2017, on the ground that the Intervenor did not report to the hospital or the worker on duty, solely on the ground that the E patient hospitalized in the intensive treatment room at around 23:18 on February 12, 2017, in which he/she was at the time of his/her age, would slick down the patient at the hospital or the worker on duty. If the patient’s state of aggravation or fatal damage was caused, the Plaintiff left the room for about 5 hours and 30 minutes until February 13, 2017. If the patient’s state of aggravation or fatal damage was caused, the Intervenor was at all responsible for the hospital and did not go against his/her wrong, and thus, the Intervenor was dismissed immediately as of February 20, 2017.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”). C.
On February 23, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission (2017da54). On April 24, 2017, the said commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that the dismissal of the instant case was justifiable.
On May 19, 2017, the intervenor dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission as to May 19, 2017, and the National Labor Relations Commission was lawful on August 2, 2017, the dismissal of the instant case is legitimate by the grounds for disciplinary action and disciplinary proceedings. However, ① the Intervenor was performing the role of de facto a responsible nurse for the relevant sick person under the Plaintiff’s implied instruction at the time of the occurrence of the instant case; ② the on-duty physician at the time of the instant case; ② the Intervenor was locked; ③ the Intervenor and the nurse F stated to the effect that the on-duty physician would seriously refuse to refuse to report to the on- duty doctor; ③ the nurse F and the nurse stated to the effect that the specific patient would interfere with the waters of other patients on several occasions.