부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. On March 25, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a central decision on March 25, 2015 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.
On April 10, 1976, the Plaintiff was established as of April 10, 1976 and engaged in financial business using approximately 15 workers in Chungcheong C, and the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was subject to removal on July 16, 2015 on the ground of embezzlement when he/she was employed by the Plaintiff on June 1, 1989.
The Intervenor asserted that the instant disposition is unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission on August 13, 2015. On October 20, 2015, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a disciplinary action in consideration of the circumstances and circumstances of the Intervenor’s misconduct, and the reason for normal participation, etc. on October 20, 2015, and the conspiracys seeking embezzlement do not violate the equity of disciplinary action. The Intervenor determined that the most harsh removal from among the means of disciplinary action only against the exclusive intervenors was an abuse of the authority to take disciplinary action, which is excessive disciplinary action.
(J) On November 27, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the request for reexamination on March 25, 2016, as the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the first inquiry tribunal and filed an application for re-examination seeking cancellation of the first inquiry tribunal with the National Labor Relations Commission.
(C) On April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff was served with the written decision on reexamination of reexamination on April 22, 2016 and filed the instant lawsuit on April 22, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleading, and the plaintiff's crime of asserting legitimacy of the judgment of the retrial of this case is a serious criminal act, and the degree and nature of the defendant's participation in and crime of other embezzlement acts are more serious than those of the participant in other embezzlement acts because the intervenor's influence within the organization of the plaintiff is prevented, and the plaintiff's removal disposition is legitimate.