부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. On November 20, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, and the National Metal Trade Union.
The plaintiff is a company that employs 60 full-time workers and operates the automobile engine mold manufacturing business. The Korean Metal Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trade union”) is an industrial trade union at a national level whose organization covers workers engaged in metal industry and metal-related industries, and the intervenor joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “participating”) was employed by the plaintiff on October 6, 2009 and was working as the head of the headquarters of the instant trade union.
On June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor as of June 20, 2014 following the resolution of the personnel committee for disciplinary action against the Intervenor.
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). 【Grounds for Disciplinary Action】
1. Refusing to return to work after the end of the hours of exemption from work;
2. Although disregarding the direction to return to work, having sent the notice of the second return order and the notice of the last return, the Intervenor in the first inquiry tribunal of the Southern Regional Labor Relations Commission and the instant trade union were unfair. The instant disciplinary action and the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission on July 3, 2014, asserting that the instant disciplinary action and the Plaintiff’s refusal to conduct collective bargaining were unfair labor practices. The instant disciplinary action on August 26, 2014 did not constitute unfair labor practices, but the previous Southern Regional Labor Relations Commission decided that the Plaintiff’s refusal to conduct collective bargaining constitutes unfair labor practices.
On November 20, 2014, the ground that “the instant disciplinary action is deemed to constitute unfair dismissal, even though the grounds for disciplinary action were determined, and it does not constitute unfair labor practice by the instant disciplinary action and by the Plaintiff’s refusal of collective bargaining,” is that the instant disciplinary action and the Plaintiff’s refusal of collective bargaining do not constitute unfair labor practice.”