부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
The Inspector of the Review Decision is a corporation that operates broadcasting business and cultural service business using approximately 1,600 full-time workers. The plaintiff is a person who joined the Intervenor on December 15, 1995 and has worked as the chief of the news service division from October 27, 2014.
On February 2, 2015, the Intervenor issued a standby order to the Plaintiff and issued the same month.
9. Around February 12, 2015, the intervenor president decided to dismiss the Plaintiff. On February 12, 2015, the intervenor president dismissed the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 3, 4, 66(1), 66(2), 6, and 10 of the Rules of Employment as grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) with respect to sexual harassment on the job of the affiliated department and the employees assigned to the next department after the issuance of the news service department.
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal.” On February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination of the instant disciplinary dismissal with respect to the Intervenor, and the Intervenor, upon notifying the Plaintiff of the attendance of the Review Personnel Committee on February 23, 2015 and on February 27, 2015, decided to hold a review personnel committee and make a final decision with respect to the lower judgment.
On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action was unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission in the same year.
5. On 29. 29. The grounds for the instant disciplinary action were partially recognized, but they accepted the Plaintiff’s request for remedy on the grounds of excessive determination.
On June 25, 2015, an intervenor appealed and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission has filed the same year.
9. 10. 10. The first inquiry court revoked and dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for remedy on the ground that “The determination of disciplinary action is appropriate in view of the fact that most of the grounds for disciplinary action of this case were recognized, and the Plaintiff did not reflect the dispatched female employees who are the socially weak as the head of the department.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings in this case.