beta
Text
1. On November 28, 2016, the Plaintiffs indicated the Defendant’s respective dispositions as of November 30, 2016, but the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 10, 2002, Plaintiff A was newly appointed to the Ministry of Information and Communications as a technical Grade 10 Information and Communications Technology Board (former Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning). From March 2, 2005, Plaintiff B was engaged in the collection service at the Department of Information and Communications C post offices in Jung-gu, Seoul, and Plaintiff B was newly appointed to the Ministry of Information and Communications on October 10, 2001 as a technical Grade 10 Information and Communications Board, and is engaged in the collection service at the Department of Information and Communications C post offices in Jung-man, regional administration offices from March 2, 2005.
B. On November 14, 2016, the Minor Regional Administration Disciplinary Committee: (a) deemed that the Plaintiffs violated Articles 56, 57, and 66 of the State Public Officials Act; (b) Article 1 (Purpose) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”); and (c) Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act”); (b) decided to take each of the above disciplinary measures against the Plaintiffs for one month of salary reduction and two months of salary reduction; and (c) on November 28, 2016, the Defendant took each of the above disciplinary measures against the Plaintiffs.
(1) There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff committed a collective action as described in paragraph (1) below.
(1) On September 1, 2016, the Plaintiffs, as members of the D Trade Union (hereinafter “D Trade Union”), proposed that the members of the D Trade Union would not register to work at work at work ( September 2, 2016) and that the members of the D Trade Union would engage in collective action (hereinafter “instant collective action”), including requesting a general director-general E, the chairperson of promotion review at C Post, from September 2, 2016 to 09:20 on September 2, 2016 (hereinafter “instant collective action”).
2. The Plaintiffs committed an illegal collective act on September 2, 2016, and the Plaintiffs rejected the Defendant’s order of overtime service from 07:00 to 08:55.