노동조합및노동관계조정법위반
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
On March 16, 2011, the Defendant reported an individual entrepreneur on March 16, 201 with the trade name “B,” and did not engage in a special business. On April 2015, the Defendant employed 32 employees of C by taking over the business of “C” around April 2015 in order to receive a successful coal management project conducted by the Korea Coal Corporation and the Korea Coal Corporation.
1. No employer in charge of controlling or participating in the organization or operation of a trade union shall control or intervene in the organization or operation of the trade union by a worker;
On May 19, 2015, the Defendant asked at B, located in Thai City D on May 19, 2015, the number of workers, including the workers who joined a trade union, and then asked at B, “self-farcing, farcing, farcing, farcing, and farcing, farcing, farcing.
(i) Mari (referring to Workers E) return to the Republic of Korea on the basis of the Republic of Korea. It will indicate who will produce two persons.
“.” From May 20, 2015 to July 2015, 21 workers, including workers F, have withdrawn from a trade union.
Accordingly, the defendant was involved in the organization or operation of a trade union.
2. No employer who has dismissed a worker on the ground of trade union activities shall dismiss or put him/her at a disadvantage on the ground that the worker has joined or attempted to join a trade union, or has attempted to organize a trade union, or has performed any other justifiable act for the operation of a trade union;
A. On May 23, 2015, the Defendant dismissed workers E on the ground that he/she committed an act disturbing deceptive order and interfering with work by setting up the status of the chief of the site of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Branch, and that he/she was dismissed.
However, the defendant was dismissed on the ground that workers E was engaged in trade union activities.