부당전보구제재심판정취소
1. On April 11, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered an unfair transfer between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor, which is the central 2013rd Seah 955.
Details of the Review Decision
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that is established on July 25, 1967 and runs a financial business by employing 1,800 full-time workers.
The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a person who was enrolled in the Plaintiff on March 14, 1997 and worked for the Plaintiff as a recipient of receipt on March 14, 1997, and was issued a transfer order at the Ansan Branch on July 26, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant transfer order”).
B. On August 6, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s instant transfer order was unfair, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy of unfair transfer with Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission Busan District Court Decision 2013Da444 on August 2, 2013. On October 2, 2013, the Intervenor rendered a judgment that the instant transfer order was unfair on the ground that the transfer order was unfair, and that the Plaintiff revoked the order of remote work site and ordered the Intervenor to return to the original work site and to order the Intervenor’s return to the original work site.
(hereinafter referred to as “the first inquiry court of this case”).
On October 25, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. The National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on January 2, 2014 due to the Central Decision No. 2013da955 on January 2, 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as “the instant decision for reexamination”. 【The ground for recognition” is without any dispute, and the Plaintiff’s instant order for the instant decision for reexamination is based on the “policy on long-range transfer,” introduced due to the aggravation of the Plaintiff’s shortage of human resources in the Seoul metropolitan area due to the Plaintiff’s deterioration of the lack of human resources in the Seoul metropolitan area. As such, the Plaintiff’s occupational need to transfer the local worker to the Seoul metropolitan area, and is called “PI” by the individual recipient at the time of the selection of the subject of the transfer.