beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.05.26 2015구합67014

부당비행정지구제재심판정취소

Text

1. On May 14, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission suspended unfair flight between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor (2015).

Reasons

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that is established on February 17, 1988 and ordinarily employs approximately 10,000 workers and runs domestic and overseas air transport business.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) joined the Plaintiff on July 1, 1997 and has been engaged in flight duty.

B. On September 12, 2014, when the Intervenor served as a captain operating an aircraft operating A320 (A320), he met with C, a regular manager in charge of the Plaintiff’s safe operation in the toilets located in the Kimpo Airport crew’s waiting room. At that time, the Intervenor was under the state of sloping.

C. After the above day, D, the team leader of the 320 safe operation team of the Plaintiff affiliated with the Intervenor, called the Plaintiff on the same day, instructed the Plaintiff to “infinite Do as it goes against the Plaintiff’s regulations.” On this day, D, who is the team leader of the Plaintiff’s 320 safe operation team, instructed the Plaintiff to “infinite Do”

However, the intervenor could not comply with the direction because it is a discriminatory provision for the intervenor's failure to grow salt differently from the foreigner following the completion of the above phone call.

D temporarily suspended the Intervenor's flight work by changing the time schedule of the Intervenor Kimpo- Jeju flight which was scheduled to be 19:20 on the same day.

On September 15, 2014, the intervenor submitted a situation description explaining the reason for the intervenor's growing salt to D, and D sent e-mail to the intervenor to the effect that the intervenor requested more specific and clear explanation on the same day.

On September 16, 2014, the intervenor again submitted to D a situation explanatory statement containing any content similar to the situation explanatory statement as of September 15, 2014, and D sent an e-mail demanding the intervenor to answer specific questions by making one question item of Abbebbes on September 17, 2014.

However, the intervenor did not answer the above questions any more, and D.