beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the village bus transport business using approximately 40 regular workers.
Intervenors, B, C, D, and E (hereinafter referred to as “instant workers”) have been employed by the Plaintiff and served as community bus drivers.
B. On July 13, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Sungnam Civil Bus Trade Union concluded a collective agreement (No. 6-2, hereinafter “instant collective agreement”) containing the following contents.
Article 56 (Retirement Age)
Provided, That an employee aged 65 or older shall be a person who is not suitable for driving duties as a result of a medical specialist's opinion each year, or fails to meet the conditions of aptitude and qualification maintenance pursuant to the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter referred to as the "passenger Act").
For the safety of passengers who use buses, those who are 65 years of age or older shall retire automatically in any of the following cases:
(1) A person who is not suitable for driving service as a result of a professional opinion.
C. On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded seven drivers of at least 65 years of age, including the instant workers, to submit the following documents by August 31 of the same year. However, the instant workers did not submit all or part of the required documents by the submission deadline.
Article 49 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Act for persons aged between 65 and under 70 (excluding persons in whose case three years have not passed since they were determined to be appropriate for a qualification inspection) who are aged at least 70 (excluding persons in whose case one year has not passed since they were determined to be appropriate for a qualification inspection), who are aged 65 and under 70 (excluding persons in whose case one year has not passed since they were determined to be appropriate for a qualification inspection) among health examinations indicating that they are not abnormal in driving of village buses and family medical science and precise checkups (new examinations)
D. The Plaintiff on January 2016.