부당해고구제재심판정취소
On October 23, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission made an application for reexamination of the unfair dismissal application against the Central Labor Relations Commission No. 2017,845.
1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;
A. On July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a labor contract form with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and drafted a new employment contract form on July 1, 2015 and July 1, 2016 (hereinafter “instant employment contract form”) on a yearly basis, and worked as the head of the management office in B (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant management office”).
B. C is a company that employs approximately 380 full-time workers and conducts multi-family housing management business, etc.
C. Around 2014, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) entered into an entrustment management agreement with C on behalf of the instant apartment occupants, and entered into the said consignment management agreement (the contract term between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2016) with respect to the instant apartment (the contract term from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016) by renewal of the contract on May 23, 2016.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant consignment management contract”) D.
On December 19, 2016, an intervenor held a regular meeting and resolved on the agenda requiring the replacement of the intervenor on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s misconduct committed by the head of the management office of this case, and requested the replacement of the Plaintiff by giving notice to C on December 26, 2016 and January 16, 2017.
E. On January 18, 2017, C responded to the Intervenor’s reply that “The Plaintiff asserted illegality regarding the Intervenor’s request for replacement with the managing director, and is under measures to process it within a lawfully binding time in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, etc.” attached the Plaintiff’s written vindication, etc.
F. On January 25, 2017, the Intervenor did not spend management expenses in accordance with the budget or regulations that became final and conclusive by the Plaintiff, and the Intervenor’s representative agreed to give approval from the Plaintiff to the Director of the Management Office, which did not present the grounds therefor, is bound to be deemed to have embezzled management expenses, and thus, the instant case as of February 28, 2017.