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 Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a company established on September 7, 2012 and engaged in the development, production, and sales of applied programs.
On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor and served in the Solar Business Division.
B. On January 20, 2015, the Intervenor held a personnel committee and resolved on the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff for the following reasons, and notified the Plaintiff on January 28, 2015 that “by dismissal on January 29, 2015.”
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disciplinary action”) 1. A.m., causing significant trouble in the performance of duties by causing assault and injury to a person with the same duty (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason”) - On Nov. 14, 2014, the head of the C team, who is a person with the same duty, disputes with respect to occupational differences, and the head of the C team, who is a person with the same duty, shall be sexually expressed to the head of the C team, who is sexually expressed a desire and assault, thereby causing a trouble to the extent that it does not perform normal duties.
2. Unauthorized absence (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason”) - On November 17, 2014, the absence without permission may cause enormous trouble in the operation of the business due to absence from work without permission even though the director D head of the company project project, vice president, and president requested the Plaintiff to complete the normal work of the project.
3. Liability for enormous impediment to business operation and property loss (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Reason ③ - The company's side entered into an outsourcing contract and produces new programs, etc. because it was impossible to transfer or take over the business files, etc. of the project in charge, causing unexpected loss and loss of opportunity cost.
C. On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against the instant disciplinary action with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on June 24, 2015 on the ground that “the grounds for the instant disciplinary action are recognized and the amount of disciplinary action is appropriate.”
On July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission on the same ground as October 19, 2015.