부당징계구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
On August 24, 2016, the Plaintiff served in the Gwangju Factory of the Intervenor and was subject to a disposition of suspension from office (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On September 27, 2016, the Plaintiff, C, D, and the Korean Metal Trade Union filed an application for remedy against unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practices with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy from the Plaintiff, C, D, and the Korean Metal Trade Union on November 22, 2016.
(F) On December 28, 2016, the Plaintiff, C, D, and the Korea Metal Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as “the first inquiry tribunal”). The Plaintiff, C, D, and the Korea Metal Trade Union were dissatisfied with the first inquiry tribunal and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on December 28, 2016, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination by the Plaintiff, C, D, and the Korea Metal Trade Union on March 14, 2017.
(A) The Plaintiff’s suspicion of disciplinary action, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of legitimacy of the decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of the same case (hereinafter “the aforementioned decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of this case”). The Plaintiff’s suspicion of disciplinary action of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of this case of this case of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of the same case of parts 2016 and 1389/Nonno259 (hereinafter “the aforementioned decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of this case”),
Nevertheless, on April 20, 2016, 30 days after the termination of a labor dispute, the intervenor notified the opening of the committee for punishment, and in this process, there was no consultation procedure between the intervenor and the trade union on the prior resumption of disciplinary action.
Even if considering the period of labor disputes commenced on July 15, 2015, the intervenor did not deliberate within 19 days at the latest from the date of the termination of the labor dispute, and even though the standing sub-committee was duly organized on July 6, 2015, the intervenor intentionally delayed the procedure by attempting to organize the standing sub-committee on April 20, 2016.