1. We affirm that the Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff during one month of suspension from office on June 25, 2015 is invalid.

2. The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company that develops and produces automobile parts and defense products, etc., and the Plaintiff is a worker belonging to the Special Business Headquarters of the Defendant Company, who was a representative of the National Metal Trade Union B branch from 2014 to 2015.

C is an employee belonging to the Special Business Headquarters of the Defendant Company, who is a worker belonging to the SCMC (resive production equipment).

B. On April 8, 2015, the Defendant’s personnel committee notified the Plaintiff of a decision of one month of suspension from office (hereinafter “instant suspension from office”) on June 25, 2015 with respect to a case between the Plaintiff and C, which was in the joint shower place in the Defendant Company.

The Plaintiff filed a petition for review on the instant disposition of suspension from office, but the Defendant rendered the same decision on July 30, 2015 (one month of suspension from office).

o In order to prevent other employees from using convenience facilities without good cause under Article 34(1)9 of the Convention on the Obstruction of Business Performance by threatening other employees in the company, thereby impairing the order and morals of the company due to bad conduct within theo company under Article 34(1)10 of the Convention on the Obstruction of the Organization of Organizations, as well as impairing the order and morals of the company due to bad conduct within theo company under Article 34(1)10 of the Convention on the Obstruction of Business Performance by threatening other employees in the company, and thereby harming the humanization of employment rules among employees by collectively taking into account the other employees o on December 3, 12.3 (1) and (8) of the Rules of Employment - Other Convention on the Organization of Organizations (10) 15 of Article 34(1) of the Do and the Rules of Employment 2.3(20) of the 12.3.2.

C. The Defendant’s collective agreement concerning the instant case is as follows.

Article 2 (Priority of Convention) The standards set forth in this Convention shall take precedence over the Labor Standards Act, the rules of employment of the company, and other individual labor contracts provided for in said Convention, and any other individual labor contracts which fall short of or conflict with the standards of the Convention shall be null

Article 6 (Enactment and Amendment of Regulations)