재심판정취소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.
The following facts that have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial are apparent or apparent in records.
The plaintiff is a corporation that employs 260 regular workers and engages in the manufacture and sale of automobile parts.
On October 6, 2003, the Intervenor B was dismissed from the Plaintiff on December 8, 2008 on the grounds of the following grounds: (a) the Intervenor engaged in an illegal industrial action, such as inducing union members to collectively refuse night extension work and Saturdays work, without going through the pro-con voting procedures for industrial action under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) during the collective bargaining from April 1, 2008 to June 5, 2008; and (b) the Plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of KRW 5,686,00,000 on the ground of other grounds: (c) the Intervenor became a member of the Plaintiff and worked as the head of the Vietnaming Department; and (d) the Intervenor was dismissed from the Plaintiff on December 8, 2008.
On the same day, the remaining intervenors, except the Intervenor B, were subject to dismissal or suspension from office due to their respective common or individual grounds for disciplinary action including the instant grounds for disciplinary action.
On December 10, 2008, the Intervenor B, including the Intervenor B, and the Korean Metal Trade Union filed an application for remedy to the effect that the above dismissal or suspension was unfair and unfair labor practices conducted for the purpose of impairing the organization of the trade union. The Chungcheongnamnam Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application on February 26, 2009 and determined that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes unfair dismissal, unfair suspension or unfair labor practices, and revoked the disposition of unfair dismissal or unfair suspension against the Intervenor and payment of the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been received if the Intervenor had worked during the period of dismissal or suspension.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on March 20, 2009 as the Ministry of Labor No. 213/2009 No. 43, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on June 10, 2009.