The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) including the portion resulting from the participation.

2. Whether each request for remedy made by the Selection Kim00 and President Park 00 is legitimate

A person shall be appointed.

On June 1, 2006, the designated person Kim ○, the head of ○○, and the head of ○○ was notified of the disciplinary action on three months of suspension from office. However, on September 5, 2006, after a review was requested against the participating person and a review was made to reduce the salary of three months and one month of suspension from office, the application for remedy of the above disciplinary action was filed with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On the other hand, each Labor Relations Commission did not dismiss the above request for remedy, and then made a decision on whether the disciplinary action was unfair. In this regard, it is intended to ex officio examine whether the designated person Kim ○ and the head of ○○○○ request for remedy were made within the relief period.

Where a worker makes a request for remedy under Article 33 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8293, Jan. 26, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the Regional Labor Relations Commission after receiving disciplinary measures, such as dismissal, etc., and undergoing a review procedure, the effect of disciplinary measures, such as dismissal, etc., takes place at the time of the initial disciplinary measures, such as dismissal, even though the review procedure has been conducted, immediately when the initial disciplinary measures, such as dismissal, are taken: Provided, That where a disciplinary measure is revoked in the review, it shall not be subject to disciplinary measures retroactively, but shall be subject to the initial disciplinary measures such as dismissal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96-5926, Feb. 14, 1997; 95Nu1238, Aug. 23, 196).

When a person who is in the active service is dismissed from a designated entity, the procedure for a retrial is being followed. Even if a person is immediately dismissed from the designated entity, the disposition of transfer to technical research personnel or skilled industrial personnel may be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu11698 delivered on May 11, 1993). However, in the period of a request for remedy, the time when the decision of reexamination is notified shall be deemed to be the starting point for the period of the request for remedy:

Article 33 (2) of the former Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the period of application for remedy for unfair labor practice, and Article 82 (2) of the former Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the application for remedy for unfair labor practice. The application period is due to ① the lack of evidence collection or fact-finding after a long time from the point of time of the act, ② it is difficult to give an order for remedy after a long time from the point of time when the unfair labor practice occurred, and rather, it is likely to undermine the stability of labor-management relations. Such circumstances are the same as that for a request for remedy such as unfair dismissal. However, if a worker makes a request for remedy after undergoing a retrial procedure, such a request for remedy, such as dismissal, it is no longer possible to cause problems as seen earlier, and it is objectively impossible to start the period of remedy when the request for remedy is made in the new trial procedure, and whether the request for remedy has been made in the new trial procedure after the lapse of one month from the date of the new trial procedure.

Therefore, each request for remedy by the Appointer Kim ○, ○○, and ○○○○○ is apparent from the time of receipt of the notice of the decision on review to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission within three months, and thus, it would be said that the period of the request for remedy was not excessive. Therefore, the decision on review of this case rendered without dismissing the request, is lawful.

3. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful;

A. The plaintiff (designated party)'s assertion

(1) In order for the National Labor Relations Commission to decide a referral to arbitration, the National Labor Relations Commission did not go through the procedure of prior mediation and mediation of the Special Arbitration Commission, but did not submit such mediation proposal. The decision to recommend conditional referral to arbitration by the Special Arbitration Commission does not have any legal basis, and the decision to recommend conditional referral to arbitration of this case is null and void in a procedural manner. Thus, the strike of this case

(2) Even if the instant strike is unfair, it would be against the principle of equity to recognize the instant strike solely on the ground that it was an executive member of the Korean Railroad Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Railroad Workers' Union") even though the Plaintiff et al. merely engaged in the instant strike with the belief that the instant strike was justifiable, or encouraged to participate in the strike, and did not participate in the strike led to the strike.

(3) Most of the actions taken by the Intervenor against the Plaintiff et al. constitute legitimate trade union activities, or the Intervenor’s illegal orders and denial of removal from position, but the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff et al. is unlawful.

(4) Each of the instant disciplinary actions against the Plaintiff et al. is not only excessive amount of the determination, but also a different determination against the Plaintiff et al. whose status is almost similar within the railroad labor union is in violation of the principle of equity.

(b) the relevant provisions;

(1) Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 8158, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter referred to as Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act)

Article 42 (Prohibition of Violence, etc.)

(2) Industrial actions shall not be conducted to suspend or obstruct the normal maintenance and operation of facilities installed to protect safety at workplaces.

Article 47 (Efforts for Voluntary Adjustment) The provisions of this Chapter shall not prevent the parties to labor relations from determining matters concerning working conditions and other labor relations by directly applying for labor-management consultation or collective bargaining, or from adjusting disagreements in labor relations and making any effort necessary therefor.

Article 52 (Private Mediation and Arbitration)

(1) The provisions of Sections 2 and 3 shall not prevent the parties to labor relations from resolving labor disputes through any other method of mediation or arbitration not falling under said Sections in accordance with mutual agreements or collective agreements.

Article 63 (Prohibition of Industrial Actions at Time of Arbitration) Any industrial action shall not be conducted for fifteen days from the date when a labor dispute is referred to arbitration.

Article 71 (Scope, etc. of Public Works)

(2) For the purpose of this Act, the term "essential public-service businesses" means the following public-service businesses as referred to in paragraph (1) whose suspension or discontinuation may seriously endanger daily life of the general public and the national economy, and whose replacement is not easy:

1. Railroads (including urban railroads) and urban bus transportation services (limited to the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities);

Article 74 (Recommendation of Referral to Arbitration)

(1) Where the Special Arbitration Committee deems that mediation has no possibility for essential public-service businesses, it may recommend that the Labor Relations Commission concerned refer the case to arbitration based on a decision.

(2) Recommendation referred to in paragraph (1) shall be made prior to the expiration of the mediation period referred to in Article 54.

Article 75 (Determination of Referral to Arbitration) The chairman of the Labor Relations Commission shall, upon receiving the recommendation as prescribed in Article 74 (1), determine whether to refer the case to arbitration after hearing the opinion of the public interest members.

【former Labor Standards Act

Article 50 (Flexible Work Hours System)

(2) When an employer has determined matters falling under the following subparagraphs by a written agreement with the workers’ representative, he may extend work hours in excess of those as referred to in Article 49 (1) in a particular week, or may extend work hours in excess of those as referred to in Article 49 (2) in a particular day, to the extent that average work hours per week during a certain unit period of not more than three months do not exceed work hours as referred to in Article 49 (1):

1. Scope of workers subject to inspection;

2. Unit period (determined to be a certain period not exceeding three months);

3. Working days in a unit period, and working hours for each working day;

4. Other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Article 59 (Annual Paid Leave)

(5) An employer shall grant leave referred to in paragraphs (1) through (4) at the time requested by the worker concerned, and between them, he/she shall pay the ordinary wages or average wages, as prescribed by the rules of employment or other rules, as regards the period. Where granting leave at the time requested by the worker concerned causes enormous trouble to the business operation, he/she may change the period.

【Labor Relations Commission Regulations

Article 48 (Special Mediation)

(6) A special mediation committee shall present a proposal for mediation to essential public-service businesses referred to in Article 71 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act by not later than the expiration of the mediation period stipulated under Article 54 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act: Provided, That this shall not apply to such cases where inevitable circumstances exist

【Rules of Employment

Article 6 (Duty of Good Faith)

(1) An employee shall faithfully perform his/her duties in compliance with Acts and subordinate statutes, regulations of the Corporation, and official orders.

Article 8 (Prohibited Acts) No employee shall commit any of the following acts:

1. Damaging the honor of the Corporation or causing property damage;

6. Deserting his/her workplace without approval of his/her superior officer or justifiable grounds;

【Personnel Regulations

(2) The period of temporary retirement from office under Article 49 (1) 2 and (2) 1 through 5 shall not be included in the period of temporary retirement from office and that of temporary retirement from office under Article 31: Provided, That in the case of study abroad, the period of temporary retirement from office under Article 49 (1) 2 and (2) 1 through 5 shall be included in the period under paragraph (1).

Article 31 (Restriction on Promotion) Any of the following persons shall not be appointed for promotion:

1. A person who is under disciplinary action, removal from position or temporary retirement;

Article 37 (Duty of Good Faith) Any employee shall faithfully perform his/her duties in compliance with Acts and subordinate statutes, the articles of incorporation, and regulations.

Article 38 (Prohibition of Deserting from Office) An employee shall not leave his/her place of work without permission or justifiable grounds of his/her superior officer.

Article 42 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) No employee shall commit any act detrimental to his/her dignity, regardless of whether it is inside or outside the scope of his/her duties. Article 43 (Duty to Comply with) Any employee shall obey any order of his/her superior with respect to the performance of his/her duties.

Article 52 (Release from Position) (1) The appointing authority shall not assign a position to a person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs:

of the corporation.

1. A person who lacks ability to perform his/her duties, or considerably damages the status of the Corporation;

Article 58 (Disciplinary Reason) If an employee falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the person having appointment authority shall request the disciplinary action, and the person having appointment authority shall take the disciplinary action according to the result of the disciplinary resolution:

1. Where he/she violates the articles of incorporation, bylaws, or other statutes;

2. When he violates his duties or neglects his duties;

5. Where he has caused damage to the Corporation by intention or grave fact; and

Article 59 (Types of Disciplinary Measures) Disciplinary measures shall be classified into removal, dismissal, suspension from office, reduction in salary, and reprimand.

/ Remuneration Regulations

Article 8 (Remuneration for Person released from Position) (1) The remuneration of a person who is released from position shall be paid only basic pay during the period of such dismissal.

Article 9 (Remuneration of Discipliner) The following remuneration shall be paid to a person who is subject to a disciplinary action during the period of the disciplinary action:

1. In cases of reduction of salary, 1/10 of the basic salary shall be reduced and paid;

Article 14 (Restriction on Promotion of Salary) (1) No person falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be allowed to raise a salary during the relevant period:

1. A person who is under a disciplinary action, removal from position or temporary retirement (excluding temporary retirement from office or temporary retirement from office and temporary retirement from office), Article 19 (2) 2. A person who is newly employed, retired, temporarily retired (excluding temporary retirement from office due to an occupational disease or injury), reinstated, released from position or disciplinary action during a regular bonus period shall be paid on a daily basis as of the date of the issuance thereof.

x Railroad Construction Disciplinary Provisions

Article 17 (Standards for Decision on Disciplinary Action)

(1) The Disciplinary Committee shall decide on a disciplinary case according to the criteria for disciplinary action specified in attached Tables 1 and 2, in consideration of the type of misconduct, degree of misconduct, severity of negligence, degree of deliberation, conduct of work, performance, public figure, circumstances, etc. of a discipline accused person: Provided, That the criteria for the determination of a disciplinary case for the types of misconduct not specified in attached Tables 1 and 2 shall be based on the criteria for the types of misconduct similar thereto.

[Attachment 1] Criteria for disciplinary action

A person shall be appointed.

【Enforcement Rule of the Personnel Regulations

Article 74 (Cancellation of Records of Disciplinary Measures, etc.) (2) Where an employee subject to removal from position falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the appointment authority shall cancel the records of the disposition of removal from position recorded in the personnel records card of the relevant employee:

2. Decision or final and conclusive judgment on invalidation or cancellation of removal from position in the Review Committee, Labor Relations Commission or court.

time.

Article 82 (Notice of Appointment of Personnel) (2) In case of removal from position, a statement of reasons for removal from position shall be attached to the Personnel Notice.

(c) Facts of recognition;

(1) On August 31, 2005, from November 4, 2005 to November 4, 2005, the Korean Railroad Act and the Intervenor conducted a collective bargaining for the renewal of the previous collective agreement (for two years from April 2003), on a total of 43 occasions, including six and thirty-seven (37) negotiations, but did not reach an agreement. The Korean Railroad Act applied for the adjustment of labor disputes to the Central Labor Relations Commission on November 10, 2005.

(2) On November 25, 2005, the Special Mediation Committee of the National Labor Relations Commission, composed of the above mediation applications, tried to hold a mediation meeting and coordinate the issues between the labor and management belonging to 209 cases through two prior mediation meetings ( November 17, 2005 and November 23, 2005). However, the Special Mediation Committee of the National Labor Relations Commission terminated the mediation without submitting a mediation proposal, considering that the significant assertion between the labor and management is not likely to lead to the lack of mediation due to the lack of the presentation of the mediation proposal.

(3) However, when the Special Coordination Committee held on November 25, 2005 submitted a letter of undertaking that the railroad union shall faithfully negotiate without strike until December 16, 2005 in order to conclude a contract with autonomous bargaining, the Special Arbitration Committee recommended that the Special Arbitration Committee suspend the preferential referral of arbitration and that the trade union should refer the relevant workplace to arbitration if it is highly likely that the trade union will take part in the industrial action without complying with the commitment.

(4) On November 25, 2005, the National Labor Relations Commission notified the Korean National Labor Relations Commission of the decision to suspend the submission of the referral to arbitration to arbitration by December 16, 2005, stating that the submission to arbitration is prohibited until December 16, 2005, and that if it is highly probable that the railroad labor union will not abide by the commitment and would be involved in industrial action, it will immediately refer the case to arbitration.

(5) After that, on December 16, 2005, the railroad labor union reserved the total strike by the end of the end of January 2006 and again submitted a letter of confirmation that there is a change in the schedule, the National Labor Relations Commission decided to suspend the second referral of the referral to arbitration on the same day, and confirmed on January 31, 2006 that the autonomous bargaining between labor and management is in progress, and decided to postpone the third referral to arbitration.

(6) On February 7, 2006, the Railroad Workers' Union continued to conduct collective bargaining with the intervenor who was resolved at 00 copies of the total strike schedule on March 1, 2006 at 01:0, but finally, the negotiations between labor and management on February 28, 2006.

(7) Accordingly, the National Labor Relations Commission made a decision to refer to arbitration on February 28, 2006, taking into account such recommendation of conditional referral to arbitration by the Special Arbitration Committee, which reads that the National Labor Relations Commission shall make a decision to refer to arbitration in 00 copies, and around that time, served the decision on the railroad labor union and the intervenors.

(8) Despite such decision made by the National Labor Relations Commission to refer to arbitration, the Korean National Labor Relations Commission commenced 0 minutes of the strike on March 1, 2006: 17,00 members including the plaintiff et al. who participated in the strike; 01th day of the same day to the members of the union who participated in the strike; 16th day (by March 1, 2006: 0: 00 on March 1, 2006) and 16th day of the first direction to return to work immediately; 2th day of the first direction to return to work again on March 11: 52 of the same month (final: 15:00 on March 2, 2006; 4:0 on March 2, 2006; 4:0 on March 2, 2006; but on the same day, the Korean National Labor Relations Commission did not inform the union members of the withdrawal of the strike as well as the removal of the union members from work.

(9) On April 1, 2006, after the withdrawal of the strike, the Korean Railroad Labor Union created a so-called "on-site strike" that allows union members returning to the site until a collective agreement is concluded with the intervenor to refuse the work instruction, to escape from the workplace, to refuse work, etc. Accordingly, the plaintiff et al., who is the executive officer of the Korean Railroad Union, instructed union members to give various guidelines to ordering the field strike and to refuse work, etc.

(10) The intervenor, due to the instant strike, reduced the daily average frequency of train operations from 2.162 times to 994 times in the case of passenger trains, from 357 times to 85 times in the case of cargo trains. Accordingly, the intervenor suffered approximately KRW 15.7 billion in business income.

(11) On March 1, 2006, the intervenor took part in the strike of this case against the plaintiff et al. and caused confusion in railroad transportation by causing unauthorized deprivation, and the intervenor's act of impairing the intervenor's honor constitutes "in short of the job performance ability or considerably damaged the status of the construction" under Article 52 (1) 1 of the Personnel Management Regulations, and thus, the intervenor taken the disposition against the plaintiff et al. against the plaintiff et al.

(12) The Intervenor held a general disciplinary committee and decided to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, etc. as shown in the attached Table. At the time, the Intervenor took part in illegal strike, including: (a) the Plaintiff, etc. without permission from March 1, 2006 to April of the same month; and (b) the Plaintiff, etc. were dissatisfied with the order to return work more than three times; (c) the Intervenor instructed and instigated the order to return work; (d) the Plaintiff, etc. to take part in the illegal strike as a common cause of disciplinary action; and (e) the Plaintiff, etc. presented individual cause of disciplinary action in the attached Table as the ground for the disciplinary action, and (e) presented the rules of employment No. 6 and 8, Article 37, 38, 42, 43, and Article 58 subparag. 1, 2, and 3 as the ground for the disciplinary action.

(13) The plaintiff et al. filed a request for a new trial against the above initial disciplinary action. The intervenor held a new trial disciplinary committee to which the plaintiff et al. " it is against the fact that the worker of this case caused inconvenience to the lives of the people due to the strike regardless of the legitimacy of the strike. On April 1, 2006, the plaintiff et al. took charge of establishing a reasonable and desirable relationship between the labor and management in the future by respecting the faith of the minimum labor and management consultation, and made a decision with respect to the plaintiff et al. to the effect that "the plaintiff et al. was correct, such as the new trial disciplinary action in the attached Table."

[Ground of Recognition] Descriptions 1 to 14 of the non-contentious facts, Gap 3-14 evidence, Eul 1-147 evidence (including each number);

The purport of all pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether the failure to present a proposal by the Special Arbitration Commission is illegal

According to the above facts, the special conciliation committee has gone through two prior conciliation meetings, and the labor and management with a view to coordinating the issues of this conciliation meeting held on November 25, 2005, but it is possible to find out the fact that conciliation has been terminated without presenting a conciliation proposal because it is difficult to present a conciliation proposal due to a significant difference between labor and management, since the special conciliation committee's failure to present a conciliation proposal under Article 48 (6) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, it cannot be said that the special conciliation committee's failure to present a conciliation proposal is illegal, and the decision to refer to arbitration cannot be said to be unlawful.

(2) Whether the decision of conditional submission to arbitration by the Special Arbitration Commission is unlawful

According to Article 74 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Committee Act, the Special Arbitration Committee may decide on the recommendation of the referral to arbitration, and it is necessary to consider the purpose of the Act which has priority over the autonomous dispute resolution of the labor-management at the time of recommending the referral to arbitration (see Articles 47 and 52). The Special Arbitration Committee is a specially established collegiate administrative agency in order to provide a prompt and objective solution method for collective interest disputes in consideration of the special characteristics of labor-management relations, and has broad discretion on the method and timing of resolution of the conflict of interest disputes. The power of the referral to arbitration is deemed necessary for the autonomous dispute resolution of labor-management. In light of the fact that the authority of the referral to arbitration grants conditional recommendation or to adjust the timing of the referral to arbitration, it cannot be said that the decision of referral to arbitration of this case is unlawful.

(3) The legitimacy of the strike and the existence of disciplinary responsibility for the plaintiff et al.

For workers' industrial action to be lawful, first, the subject of collective bargaining shall be a person to be the subject of collective bargaining, second, the purpose thereof shall be to create autonomous negotiations between the labor and management to improve working conditions, third, the employer shall commence collective bargaining with respect to specific demands for the improvement of working conditions of workers, and unless there are special circumstances, it shall undergo procedures prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the consent and decision of union members, and fourth, the means and method shall be in harmony with the employer's re-industrial power, as well as all the conditions that it shall not constitute violence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do588, Jan. 20, 1998; 9Do4837, Oct. 10, 201; 25, etc.). In particular, the intervenor's industrial action falls under the essential public works provided for in Article 71 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Act, and if the labor dispute is referred to arbitration, it shall not be referred 15 days from the date of such industrial action.

However, as seen earlier, the decision to refer the case to arbitration is lawful. As such, a trade union cannot conduct industrial actions, such as strike, for the period from 00 to 15 days, at the workplace of the intervenor where the intervenor engaged in essential public-service business. As recognized earlier, the plaintiff et al. led to the plaintiff et al. to participate in the strike of this case during the period during which the industrial action was prohibited. The plaintiff et al. urged the plaintiff et al. to participate in the strike of this case while leading the union members to participate in the strike of this case. On the other hand, the plaintiff et al. did not comply with the order to return the intervenor's work, and the act constitutes an illegal industrial action lacking procedural legitimacy, and the above act by the plaintiff et al. constitutes an act of violation of Articles 6 (Duty of Good Faith), 8 (Duty of Good Faith), and Article 37 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 38 (Prohibition of Evasion), Article 42 (3) of the Rules on Personnel Management, and Article 42 (3) of the Disciplinary Reason.

(4) Determination on the legitimacy of individual grounds for disciplinary action

In order to deem the activities of a trade union to be justifiable, it shall be deemed that the activities of a trade union are deemed to be activities of a trade union, or that the implied authorization or approval of a trade union is necessary for the maintenance of the street conditions and the enhancement of workers’ economic status, and shall be helpful for the strengthening of the unity of workers. Except as otherwise provided in the rules of employment or collective agreement, or with the employer’s consent, it shall be conducted during employment hours, and a reasonable regulation or restriction based on the employer’s right to manage facilities shall be complied with in the activities in a trade union within a place of business, and unless it is done by means of violence, destruction, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do613, Feb. 22, 1994). In addition, it is reasonable to deem that an industrial action is justifiable, as seen above, the subject, purpose, procedure, means, and method of individual grounds for disciplinary action presented by the Intervenor in accordance with the above legal doctrine.

(A) The act of transferring the instant strike

① Although a lawful decision to refer to arbitration was made, there is only procedural illegality that the strike of this case was conducted within the prohibition period of industrial action. Thus, even if the strike of this case was illegal on February 28, 2006, it is difficult to deem that the strike of this case was unlawful as well as the preparation of a series of strike, such as attending various assemblies before the decision to refer to arbitration at around 00 on February 28, 2006, distribution of printed materials, distribution of printed materials, expenses for the strike, and the act of inciting the union members to participate in the strike, and there is no other evidence to prove that the above act constitutes an illegal union activity. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the above act constitutes a ground for

② On the other hand, some of the plaintiffs et al. ordered the union members to wear a uniform instead of the uniform and work on the train and train, etc. The above actions were conducted with the aim of inducing union members to participate in the strike and encouraging the people to understand the strike, but they violated the employer's instruction on the reproduction of the intervenor and infringe the right to manage the facility.

③ In addition, even if there is no evidence to prove that the designated person Kim○○, Kim○○, Ga○○, Ga○○○, etc. participated in the resolution conference for the Seoul District of Railroad Workers on December 9, 2005 for the withdrawal of the non-business of the new project on December 9, 2005, and subsequently interfered with the operation of the business, such as destroying the office of approximately 3,614,00 won by occupying the office of the head of the metropolitan headquarters located on the 6th floor of Seoul District Office (former Railroad Office) and destroying the office of approximately 3,614,00 won, and there is no agreement between the intervenor and the railroad union that the above act will not be subject to disciplinary reasons after the act was committed, the above act constitutes a violation of the employer’s right to manage the facilities due to the act of violence or destruction, and constitutes a justifiable ground for disciplinary

④ At around 00 on February 24, 2006, 200: Around 17, 04: Around 1216 train scheduled to arrive in Seoul, the Appointer ○○○○, a river officer, and a assistant engineer: Around February 24, 2006: Around 0: (a) passed through without permission, while operating a train with the 1216 train scheduled to arrive in Seoul; (b) the 25 passengers who were unable to get out of the Pyeongtaek Station were moving to the si Station to the si Station; and (c) the Claimant succeeded to the subsequent train; and (d) the 5 passengers who were unable to get out of the si Station were operating in compliance with the operational rules, such as stopping at the given time due to the characteristics of the Claimant’s railroad transportation business, is an essential and fundamental obligation under a labor contract and constitutes grounds for disciplinary action that causes damage to the intervenor by violating good faith.

(B) An act after the instant strike

① The mere fact that the Plaintiff et al. participated in an illegal industrial action that lacks procedural legitimacy does not constitute a case where the Plaintiff et al. lacks the job performance ability or considerably damaged the Intervenor’s status. Inasmuch as the Intervenor did not attach a written explanation of removal from the position while taking the position, the removal from position does not have substantive and procedural justification, and thus, is unlawful. However, the Intervenor’s removal from position is unlawful. However, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, the Intervenor et al. is obligated to comply with the act that the Intervenor et al. did not submit education refusal or task during the period of removal from position constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.

② When the Intervenor becomes unable to operate the existing Article without any written agreement with the labor representative due to the strike in this case and the massive removal from position caused thereby, it is true that the Intervenor reconvened the labor union with any other content as stipulated in the existing collective agreement without any written agreement with the labor representative. However, Article 50(2) of the former Labor Standards Act, which requires a written agreement with the labor representative as a requirement for flexible change of working hours for a unit period of not more than three months, is premised on the change of working hours to cope with economic changes, and it is difficult to view that the act of the Intervenor’s temporary suspension of assignment from position constitutes an unlawful act of the Intervenor’s temporary suspension of assignment from position due to an unlawful strike by the labor union and its users’ removal from position, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Intervenor’s act of the Intervenor’s temporary suspension of assignment from position constitutes an unlawful act of the Intervenor’s temporary suspension of removal from position as an essential public work and thus, it is difficult to expect safety and agreement between the labor representative and the labor representative’s removal from position.

③ Posting a list to the effect that an illegal participation in the strike of this case or early return to the union in accordance with the order to return the intervenor’s work is intended to criticize or psychological pressure on the part of the union members who were not participating in the strike of this case, constitutes grounds for requisition, even if it was posted on the bulletin board of the union as alleged by the plaintiff, by pointing out facts publicly, thereby impairing the honor of the strike participants, etc., and by hindering the Intervenor’s occupational distress and/or engaging in illegal strike of this case.

④ Trade union activities of non-former union members should be conducted outside the working hours except where there is a separate permit provision in the rules of employment or collective agreement, or where there is an employer’s consent. Thus, the act of attending an assembly or drinking on the date of employee resolution by leaving the place of work without permission of the head of the agency to which the Plaintiff belongs constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. Accordingly, since the Plaintiff et al. applied for annual leave to attend an assembly but returned it, it cannot be viewed as a deviation without permission. However, the employer must grant leave at the time of the worker’s request, but if the employer gives leave at the time of the worker’s request, and if it seriously impedes the business operation, it can be changed (Article 59(5) of the former Labor Standards Act). Considering that the time of the Intervenor’s request is difficult to operate the business due to a lack of human resources due to the instant strike and on-the-spot strike, etc., even if the Intervenor rejected the Intervenor’s request as claimed by the Plaintiff et al., it can be seen as an act of deviation without permission.

⑤ The Plaintiff et al.: (a) occupied the Intervenor’s history or the office at the Intervenor’s place of residence for the purpose of farming as prescribed in paragraph (1); (b) established a calculty in history; and (c) such act is an association activity within the place of business that infringed the user’s right to manage facilities by violent means; and (d) so long as there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement between the Intervenor and the railroad labor union, it constitutes grounds for discipline

6) The Intervenor’s order to submit a written application for the return to the work of this case is an order issued to correct the strike of this case, and thus, the act of violating this order constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. In addition, the Intervenor’s act of wearing a copy stating “ex officio invalidation of arbitration” bl. In addition, the Intervenor’s act of neglecting the Intervenor’s normal operation of business operations, such as the Intervenor’s withdrawal of disciplinary action, constitutes a violation of the Intervenor’s service regulations beyond the ordinary scope of union activities, and also violates the Intervenor’s duty of good faith. Thus, the Intervenor’s act of not complying with the order of not wearing the above part of his trade, but by failing to comply with the order of the company’s failure to use it, constitutes grounds for disciplinary

7) On March 25, 2006, 03: 00 to 08:0 on the same day: 00 on the same day, the designated person: (a) requested the immediately preceding worker 00, the head of the team at which ○○, without reporting the change of working hours to 00; (b) left the workplace by requesting the former worker ○, who is the team leader at which ○; (c) as a matter of the above problem, the designated person made verbal speech to ○○, a commercial person; and (d) walking the head of the transportation department room in the process of a dispute with ○○, the designated person made a disturbance; and (d) considering that the change of working hours without the employer’s approval was not permitted as an act in violation of the employer’s service regulations, the above act constitutes a violation of Article 37, 38, or 43 of the Personnel Affairs Regulations, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.

8. However, the plaintiff et al. refused to comply with the demand for attendance of the audit room in accordance with the guidelines on the railroad labor union, and the evidence submitted by the intervenor alone is insufficient to admit that the plaintiff et al. is obligated to comply with the said demand for attendance. Rather, the said audit room’s demand for attendance mainly appears to provide the plaintiff et al., who is the suspect, with an opportunity for explanation. As such, the failure to comply with the said request for attendance is merely a waiver of procedural rights conferred upon the plaintiff et al

(5) Whether a disciplinary action is appropriate

The plaintiff et al., as an executive member of the strike of this case, recommended the union members to participate actively in the strike of this case and did not follow the order to return to the intervenor. The plaintiff et al. suffered enormous economic damage directly from the strike of this case and damaged external images and trust as a public corporation to perform public services due to a huge inconvenience in people's lives throughout the nation's strike. The intervenor agreed to minimize disciplinary action due to the strike of this case for reasonable and desirable relations between labor and management in the future, and accordingly reduced the disciplinary action against the plaintiff et al. in the retrial procedure. The fact that it is reasonable for the union members led by planning, instructing, and guiding the illegal industrial action to take more responsibilities than those of the general union members. The disciplinary action of this case belongs to the discretion of the person with authority to take disciplinary action, and the disciplinary action of this case does not require any other disciplinary action than the disciplinary action of the plaintiff et al., even if other circumstances such as the disciplinary action of this case were not established before or after the strike of this case.

(6) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the disciplinary action against the plaintiff et al. is legitimate, and the trial court of the case is legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff (designated party)'s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Cho Chang-young

Judges Equitable:

nan

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

List of Selections

omitted.