All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the supplementary intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court, after compiling the adopted evidence, found the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and for the following reasons, determined that the instant measure against the remaining Intervenor except G does not constitute a disciplinary action without justifiable grounds as stipulated in Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and that the instant measure against the remaining workers among the instant workers constitutes a disciplinary action without justifiable grounds, and revoked the entirety of the instant measure as to the remaining Intervenors except G among the final judgment rendered by the Central Labor Relations Commission, with disciplinary action without justifiable grounds.

Inasmuch as the instant measure is a sanction other than the instant disciplinary measure, which is disadvantageous to the benefit of the Plaintiff, it constitutes “other disciplinary measures” as prescribed by Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, separate from the instant disciplinary measure.

B. The instant measures were taken through the application of the instant collective agreement and the instant benefit provision, and the instant collective agreement and the instant benefit provision are lawful and effective.

C. The Defendant’s Intervenor (excluding G) who was subject to the instant disciplinary action at a reduction level or higher following the amendment of the instant salary provision applied the instant collective agreement and the instant salary provision, and the instant measure taken in accordance with the lawful and effective collective agreement and the instant salary provision does not constitute an unfair disciplinary punishment without justifiable grounds.

On the other hand, the instant benefit provision does not apply to M, N, and Intervenor G who was subject to the instant disciplinary measure prior to the amendment of the instant benefit provision, and thus, the instant measure applied the instant benefit provision to those persons constitutes unfair disciplinary punishment without justifiable grounds.

2. In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and it is against the interpretation of Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act as alleged in the plaintiff's grounds of appeal.