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.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Plaintiff is a company selling commodities, such as commercial aid, family events, travel, and language training, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) entered the Plaintiff on March 11, 2014 and served as a director in charge of the fishery science division.
B. On June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) held a personnel committee for the first instance on June 10, 2014; (b) decided to dismiss the Intervenor pursuant to Article 36(1)2, 6, and 10 of the Rules of Employment on the ground that “i) by disseminating false facts by the Intervenor, inciting to instigate business operators; and (c) obstructed the progress of the Plaintiff’s general meeting of shareholders; and (d) decided to dismiss the Intervenor pursuant to Article 36(1)2, 6, and 10 of the Rules of Employment.
On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff, without the vindication of the Intervenor, held the Second Personnel Committee and resolved on June 17, 2014 to determine the dismissal of the Intervenor on the grounds of each of the grounds for the instant disciplinary reasons, and on the same day, dismissed the Intervenor.
(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) C.
On August 4, 2014, an intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the dismissal of the instant case constitutes unfair dismissal. On September 30, 2014, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that the dismissal of the instant case constitutes unfair dismissal on the ground that “The dismissal of the instant case is deemed to have exceeded and abused the authority of disciplinary discretion.”
On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the review with the National Labor Relations Commission to seek revocation of the said early inquiry tribunal under Section 1119, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on February 12, 2015, for the same reasons as the above initial inquiry tribunal.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant adjudication on reexamination”). (In the absence of dispute with the grounds for recognition, each entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, and 15 and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful
A. Plaintiff 1’s assertion by the parties: An intervenor.