부당노동행위구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous administrative agency in charge of the administrative affairs of Jeonnam A, and approximately 650 public officials belong to the Plaintiff.
The participant trade union is comprised of public officials appointed from central administrative agencies, the Office of Education, local governments, etc., and there are approximately 60 public officials belonging to A-Gun under the national unit trade union established on July 10, 2007.
B. On October 25, 2010, the Intervenor Trade Union filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s public official at Grade 6 was not an employee subject to insurance, etc. on August 26, 2010, the Plaintiff provided education to the effect that the public official at Grade 6 was not an employee subject to insurance, etc. on August 26, 2010, and then forced the public official in charge of support and the employee in charge of audit to withdraw from the trade union of Grade 6 public official (hereinafter “instant act”). On January 12, 2011, the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission issued an order for remedy by deeming that the instant act constituted unfair labor practices
C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on January 31, 2011, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed it on April 7, 2011.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision by reexamination”). / [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including serial numbers; hereinafter referred to as "numbers") and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The “written designation of a proxy for the chairperson’s authority” submitted by the Intervenor Trade Union (No. 2-2 of the evidence No. 2) (the representative of the Intervenor Trade Union is registered as C on April 15, 2010, stated as the date of the preparation thereof. As such, the Plaintiff cannot assert that the representative is D, and Article 52(5) of the Rules of the Intervenor Trade Union takes precedence over Article 51(2) of the Intervenor Trade Union.