부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
The intervenor in the process of the retrial decision is a local corporation of Singapore Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "C"), a local corporation that employs 27 full-time workers, and produces and installs a safety mark attached to the offshore plant drone. The plaintiff entered into a labor contract with three months on April 7, 2014 and joined the intervenor and was in charge of quality assurance management.
On July 4, 2014, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of employment on July 5, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the average job requirements in all items of the training evaluation sheet as a result of the assessment of the work performed against the Plaintiff on the training period.
(hereinafter “Revocation of Employment”). On July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy of unfair dismissal with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission”) on the grounds that the refusal of this employment constitutes unfair dismissal. However, on September 2, 2014, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that the Intervenor’s refusal of this employment against the Plaintiff was reasonable.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on October 13, 2014, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on December 24, 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on reexamination”). [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff’s revocation of the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of this case is unlawful in the course of its procedural process without involvement of the representative director of the Intervenor.
Although the Plaintiff’s direct superior position is D, the above D’s opinion was not reflected in the Plaintiff’s business evaluation during the process of revoking the employment of this case, and there is no credibility in the evaluation of the Plaintiff’s volunteer staff.
Therefore, the cancellation of the appointment of this case is unlawful, and unlike this, the decision of this case is unlawful.
As shown in the attached Form of the relevant regulations.
(Reasons for Recognition: Statement No. 1 in B). On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff is aware of the recognition.