부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Plaintiff is a company established on June 3, 2010 and ordinarily employs 1,100 workers and engages in producing and selling pesticides, fertilizers, seeds, etc. at a nationwide point.
An intervenor is a person who worked in C (hereinafter “C”) from January 3, 1990, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the employment relationship of C around September 10, 2012, and has been working as an employee of the Plaintiff from around that time.
B. On December 10, 2013, 29 employees of the Plaintiff’s Seed Business Department, including the Intervenor, jointly signed a petition stating that “The Plaintiff’s managing director, who is in charge of the Plaintiff’s business of seeds business, embezzled high-priced seeds, which are the Plaintiff’s company’s property, and misappropriated the company’s public funds for personal expenses, and made an inappropriate disposition, such as inducing punishment for an individual’s e-mail thereby impairing the unity of the company and impairing the company’s deceptive order, thereby impairing the company’s unity and impairing the company’s deceptive order.” The e-mail sent the petition to the president of the E-group, the management instruction team, etc. (hereinafter “instant petition”).
C. Upon the occurrence of the foregoing case, on December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee as to nine of the aforesaid 29 intervenors, including the Intervenor, on the ground that “the Plaintiff committed a collective act to commit maritime affairs by doing so, did not leave the workplace without permission, and neglected to perform his/her duties, and did not comply with justifiable instructions, thereby disturbing the order of deceptive scheme.”
An intervenor has used annual leave from December 11, 2013 to December 13, 2013 and has been employed in Thailand, so the intervenor was not present at the above personnel committee.
Accordingly, on December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff issued an opportunity to vindicate to the intervenors by having the Plaintiff’s head of the personnel team and the Standing Director, a member of the said personnel committee, interview the Intervenor.
After that, the above personnel committee resolved on the intervenor's "retirement". D.