부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;
A. The Plaintiff is a company established on February 10, 1966 and engaged in various storage batteries manufacturing and sales business.
The Intervenor joining the Plaintiff on August 1, 1987 and served as the team leader from March 1, 2010 at the domestic headquarters business planning team.
B. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action against the Intervenor for the following reasons:
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). The Intervenor is the team leader responsible for the development planning and marketing management of new products; ① falsely reporting the C demand investigation and sales prospects (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action”); ② failing to comply with the product quality planning management and amendment management regulations (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action”); ③ Notwithstanding the opposition to the product development sector, C is “the grounds for disciplinary action” for false public relations (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action”).
(4) The reason for the disciplinary action of No. 4 of the "No. 4" is that the occurrence of a loss by force due to the sale of an uninspected new product.
(5) For the performance of the new products planned by the Intervenor, intention to delay production and sales after the first loss (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action”) is called “the grounds for disciplinary action” under Article 5.
(C) On October 24, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy against the instant disciplinary action with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On December 22, 2014, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application for remedy on the ground that “the grounds for partial disciplinary action (which are not recognized as those for partial disciplinary action) and the amount of disciplinary action is too harsh.” On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 4, 2015, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for review on the same ground (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”).
(ii) [Based on recognition] unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
each entry, the purport of the whole pleading
2. The plaintiff's assertion of this case.