1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The intervenor is a company running the business of manufacturing newspaper sites by using 211 full-time workers in Youngnam Cancer-gun AF, and the plaintiffs were subject to disciplinary action, such as dismissal on December 20, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”), while employed by the intervenor as an on-site employee. Each of the plaintiffs’ respective entry dates, details of the disposition, and reasons are as stated in the separate sheet.

B. On December 24, 2010, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disciplinary action constituted an unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practice and filed an application for remedy with the former Regional Labor Relations Commission. On February 21, 2011, the former Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Plaintiffs’ application for remedy on the ground of procedural defect in the instant disciplinary action (a defect in the composition of the disciplinary committee, a failure to provide explanation, and a violation of the prohibition of disciplinary action during the dispute period). All of the Plaintiffs dismissed the application for remedy for unfair labor practice on the ground of lack of evidence.

C. On March 25, 2011, the Plaintiffs and intervenors dissatisfied with the above determination, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission had the same year.

7. 22. 22. On the ground that “No defect exists in the procedure of the instant disciplinary action, and the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized, and no disciplinary action shall be deemed to have been taken,” the former Southern Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ request for remedy against unfair disciplinary action at the same time during the initial inquiry tribunal, and dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ request for review on unfair labor practice

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap’s 1, 2, Eul’s 15, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disciplinary procedure of this case is legitimate

A. On November 15, 2006, the Intervenor asserted that the Plaintiffs concluded a collective agreement with the H trade union (hereinafter “instant collective agreement”). Meanwhile, the H trade union, which is a company-level trade union, constituted the instant collective agreement, around November 4, 2008, the case where the Korea Metal-nam Branch of the Korea Metal Trade Union (hereinafter “H branch”).