부당징계구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. An intervenor is a company that is established around December 29, 1965 and ordinarily employs approximately two hundred workers and operates passenger transport business using buses.
The plaintiff was employed by the intervenor around September 8, 2010 and served as an urban bus driver.
B. On November 2, 2014, around 07:50, the Intervenor’s bus owned by the Plaintiff was running on a single-lane the three-distance from the entrance of the Cheongpyeong-gu Cheongpyeong-gun, Gyeonggi-gu, the Plaintiff caused an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).
In the instant accident, approximately KRW 3.84 million of the repair cost was damaged to the said passenger car, and approximately KRW 1.65 million of the medical cost was damaged to the said passenger car, and approximately KRW 1.99 million of the repair cost was damaged to the said bus.
C. On May 6, 2015, the Intervenor referred the Plaintiff to the Disciplinary Committee in relation to the instant accident. On May 14, 2015, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of disciplinary action that “The Plaintiff shall be punished by the suspension of attendance 15 days based on Article 15(1)3(c) of the Disciplinary Rule on the ground of the instant accident.”
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). On May 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for a retrial against the Intervenor, but the Intervenor dismissed the said request for retrial on June 23, 2015.
On July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy of unfair disciplinary action with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) No. 2015.
On August 31, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s petition for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor’s ground for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff is justifiable, and there are no circumstances to deem that the Intervenor’s ground for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff exists any abuse or deviation from the right to disciplinary action against the instant case, and there is no defect in the procedure of
E. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission under the Ministry of Labor No. 2015 Addenda 994 regarding the said initial inquiry tribunal.
The National Labor Relations Commission.