부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. On June 5, 2015, the Central Labor Relations Commission rendered against the Plaintiff the remedy for unfair dismissal.
The plaintiff (the plaintiff's original name was "Seoul Industrial Trade Promotion Agency," but its name was changed as of March 20, 2014) is an institution established on March 31, 1998 in accordance with Article 49 of the Balanced Regional Development and Support for Local Small and Medium Enterprises Act, Article 63 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Seoul Industrial Promotion Agency established on March 31, 1998 pursuant to the Seoul Industrial Promotion Agency Ordinance on Establishment and Operation of Seoul Industrial Promotion Agency, which provides comprehensive and systematic support to small and medium enterprises with approximately 250 workers for the purpose of contributing to improving the business conditions
On October 22, 2012, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) hired the Plaintiff as a fixed-term employee with the term of the contract fixed by the Plaintiff as one year, and carried out B’s work. From October 22, 2013 to February 27, 2014, the Intervenor did not prepare a separate employment contract and carried out the same work, and entered into a labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as of October 21, 2014.
On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff’s employment relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s failure to renew the contract despite the expiration of the term of employment contract with the Intervenor.
On December 26, 2014, an intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the refusal by the plaintiff to renew the contract with the intervenor constitutes unfair dismissal, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling that the plaintiff would accept the Intervenor’s petition for remedy on February 24, 2015.
Accordingly, on April 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination seeking the revocation of the said determination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on June 5, 2015.
(2) If the plaintiff's contract period of the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the retrial ruling of this case is extended once by one time, the intervenor shall set the period of time when the plaintiff's contract period of the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the retrial ruling of this case is extended.