부당해고구제재심판정취소
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.
The plaintiff is a non-profit organization established to manage the facilities and occupants of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government A Apartment by employing 50 full-time workers. The intervenor B is a general affairs on January 24, 2003, and the intervenor C is a person who joined the plaintiff on August 26, 2008 and works for the plaintiff.
On February 10, 2015, the Plaintiff issued an order to change the assignment of the Intervenor B to the general affairs (hereinafter “order to change the assignment of the position of this case”), and the Intervenor rejected the order and performed the existing duties.
Accordingly, on April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff, following a resolution of the personnel committee, took disciplinary action against the Intervenor as of April 13, 2015 on the ground that the Intervenor did not comply with the order to change the assignment of the instant position, which is a legitimate business order.
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). On May 18, 2015, participants in the first inquiry tribunal of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission asserted that the instant disciplinary action was unfair and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission cited the instant disciplinary action on July 28, 2015.
On August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal of the National Labor Relations Commission, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on August 27, 2015, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order to change the assignment of the instant case is justifiable as the order was issued within the Plaintiff’s personnel authority, and thus, the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order to change the assignment of the instant case was justifiable, but the disciplinary action is excessive and unreasonable.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on reexamination”). [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 7 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the entire pleading, and whether the instant decision on reexamination is legitimate.