1. On April 17, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission’s Central Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “National Labor Relations Commission”) between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, the Central 2015 Supplementary Notes 167, and the Vice-No23

The plaintiffs in the position of the parties to the instant ruling are those who are engaged in medical services by employing 360 full-time workers in Q from Jeju to Jeju, under the trade name of the R Hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”), from August 21, 1999 to Jeju, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) entered the instant hospital on January 19, 2004 and work as an emergency medical technician in the nursing department.

On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiffs subject to the instant disciplinary action against the Intervenor, issued a warning to the Intervenor on the grounds of the following disciplinary grounds, following the resolution by the Disciplinary Committee.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). 【Grounds for Disciplinary Action】

1. Refusal of instructions to operate emergency vehicles for requesting blood testing (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”) around 14:55 on August 31, 2014

2. On September 21, 2014, around 22:30, the first trial tribunal of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected an emergency vehicle operation instruction for blood transport (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”) (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”), the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Regional Labor Relations Commission on November 3, 2014, asserting that the instant disciplinary action constituted unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practices, and other acts of posting the Intervenor’s personal information constituted unfair labor practices. The Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed or dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on January 22, 2015.

On February 23, 2015, the Intervenor dissatisfied with the aforementioned initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on February 23, 2015. On April 17, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission partially accepted the Intervenor’s application for reexamination on the ground that the instant disciplinary action did not exist and does not constitute illegal and unfavorable labor practices, but the Intervenor’s personal information was posted on the ground that it does not constitute unfair labor practices.

The instant disciplinary action part among the decision on review of this case is the same.