부당해고 및 부당노동행위 구제 재심판정 취소청구의 소
1. On March 22, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “National Labor Relations Commission”) against the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Defendant’s Intervenor”) Nos. 2015, 1314, and 253, respectively.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation established and operated C University (hereinafter “C University”) on January 25, 1964.
The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the commission of part-time lecturers at the first semester in 1993, and entered into a contract for the commission of the Plaintiff and part-time lecturers several times since the lecture at C in the Department of Korean Language and the Department of Korean Language, etc., and the detailed details of the commission are as shown in the attached Form.
B. The Plaintiff did not assign lectures to the intervenors during the first semester of 2015, and did not enter into a contract with the Intervenor for appointment as a part-time lecturer.
B. On February 2 to 3, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for unfair dismissal relief with Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission No. 2015Da573 on the ground of the purport of the application that “the Plaintiff recognizes that it is unfair if it excludes the Intervenor from the assignment of the first semester lecture in 2015.”
(In addition, the application for remedy for unfair labor practices filed by the Intervenor was filed concurrently, but the part concerning the application is omitted). On April 23, 2015, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal of the Intervenor, and the intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission around May 2015 to June 2015.
The National Labor Relations Commission, August 27, 2015, on the ground that the Intervenor’s refusal to re-commission the first semester in 2015 falls under the termination of labor relations due to the expiration of the term of labor contract, on the following grounds: (a) comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Plaintiff limited the term of appointment of part-time instructors to four semesters; (b) the Intervenor has continuously served four semesters except for a specific period from February 1998, and (c) the Intervenor has continuously served in the non-commissioned form; and (d) it is difficult to deem that the Intervenor’s right to expect renewal in the first semester in 2015 is recognized.