부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.
On June 3, 1956, the plaintiff is a local public enterprise that employs approximately two thousand and six hundred full time workers and operates E business, etc. with the purpose of contributing to the promotion of citizens' welfare through the efficient management and operation of facilities designated by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor pursuant to the Local Public Enterprises Act and the Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of Seoul Facilities Corporation.
The Intervenor B entered Seoul Special Metropolitan City on February 15, 2014 and renewed the employment contract on five occasions as shown below.
The Intervenor C and A joined Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 7, 2015, and the Intervenor D were employed until February 28, 2016, respectively, on October 1, 2015.
From March 1, 2016, the Intervenor entrusted the Plaintiff with the E business on February 2016, and the Intervenor served as the Plaintiff from March 1, 2016.
The period of the Intervenor’s employment contract in B is from February 15, 2014 to June 30, 2014 (new employment) to December 31, 2014 (Renewal of an employment contract) to December 31, 2014 (New Employment) from January 1, 2015 to April 30, 2015 (New Employment) from May 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015 (Revision-Extension of an employment contract) from June 30, 2015 to June 30, 2015 (Extension of an employment contract) and the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor on July 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015 (Extension of an employment contract to June 1, 2015) as the expiration of a new employment contract on September 20, 2016 to September 216, 2017 (hereinafter “new employment contract”).
(hereinafter “Notification on the Effective Period”). On December 19, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for unfair dismissal by asserting that the notification on the expiration of the period of this case was an unfair dismissal.
The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission succeeded to the employment of the plaintiff in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on April 20, 2018, and the intervenor C was converted to an employee who entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time and the remaining intervenors still are fixed-term workers, but there is no reasonable ground for rejection of renewal of the employment contract. Thus, the notice of expiration of the term of validity of the instant case is unreasonable.
on the ground that "...."