부당징계구제재심판정취소
1. On March 22, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered unfair disciplinary relief between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor against the Central District Court.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Plaintiff is running passenger transport business by employing 130 workers.
On January 11, 2010, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff and carried out bus driving services.
B. On July 26, 2016, the Intervenor: (a) filed an annual leave on July 26, 2016 with the Plaintiff’s regular business C on July 25, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s election of the head of the trade union was constituted text messages; (b) on July 25, 2016, C responded that it is impossible for the Intervenor to approve the annual leave on July 25, 2016; (b) the Intervenor refused the Plaintiff’s operation order on the ground that the Plaintiff was registered as a candidate for the head of the trade union branch, while driving a bus on July 26, 2016; and (c) the Intervenor left the workplace without permission for six hours from 13:0 to 19:30 minutes.
(C) From July 30, 2016 to August 2, 2016, the Plaintiff was absent from office without permission from July 26, 2016 to August 2, 2016, and the Intervenor granted holidays from July 27, 2016 to August 1, 2016 to the Intervenor (hereinafter “the Intervenor resigned from the above election candidate”) on July 29, 2016, although the Intervenor did not have any remaining holidays, the Plaintiff was absent from office without permission from the Plaintiff from July 30, 2016 to August 2, 2016. However, the Intervenor resigned from the above election candidate on July 29, 2016, and the Plaintiff withdrawn the holidays granted to the Intervenor on the same day and ordered the Intervenor to work on board. However, the Intervenor was absent from office without permission from the Plaintiff to July 30, 2016 to August 2, 2016.”
From August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to the Intervenor to the effect that the Intervenor was present at the head office on July 26, 2016 and to explain the absence without permission from July 30, 2016 to August 2, 2016. However, the Intervenor did not comply with the Plaintiff’s order of attendance. 2) The Plaintiff did not comply with the Plaintiff’s order of attendance. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27470, Aug. 4, 2016>