[중앙노동위원회판정처분취소][공1980.3.1.(627),12554]
Effect of disciplinary action pursuant to the Company Disciplinary Regulation without the provision of notice and defense procedure
Unless the procedures such as the notification of facts of suspicion or the granting of an opportunity to defend himself/herself in the disciplinary action against a worker are prescribed in the rules of employment, it shall not be deemed null and void even if the worker is dismissed without following such procedures.
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act
Supreme Court Decision 78Da304 Delivered on January 30, 1979
Plaintiff 1 and two others, Attorneys Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
National Labor Relations Commission
Appellee Kim Tae
Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu206 Decided September 11, 1979
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
First, we examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 as well.
All theories do not appear to the effect that the judgment of the court below is criticized by taking account of the evidence preparation and fact-finding, which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and even if the records are examined, it cannot be found that the court below erred by the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, etc. in the selection of evidence that has gone through the finding of facts as stated in its reasoning, and it cannot be said that there is any brut other
All arguments are without merit.
Next, we examine the second ground for appeal.
According to Article 27-2 and Article 27-1 of the Labor Standards Act, when a worker is dismissed, at least 30 days' prior notice shall be given, but this shall not apply when the worker is dismissed due to reasons attributable to the worker. In addition, if the procedure such as notification of facts of disciplinary action or granting of an opportunity to defend himself/herself is not provided, it shall be interpreted that such procedure cannot be null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da304 delivered on January 30, 1979). In this case, according to the facts established by the court below, it is reasonable for the Intervenor to accept and manage the user company of this case, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for rejection between the Plaintiffs and the U.S. military trade office, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for rejection and a legitimate ground for rejection under Article 8 of the Rules of Employment to the effect that the Intervenor did not comply with the above provision. In other words, it cannot be viewed as a ground for dismissal under the above provision that the Plaintiffs were not subject to prior notice of dismissal.
This paper is without merit.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)