1. On March 4, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered the Central Labor Relations Commission’s decision on March 4, 2015, 2014, 1269 and 202, respectively among the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The Plaintiff as the party to the instant decision was established on October 29, 2007 and engaged in the taxi passenger transport business by employing 60 full-time workers. The Intervenor B (hereinafter “ Intervenor B”) joining the Plaintiff on March 5, 2012 and serving as a taxi driver.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant is a national-level industrial trade union consisting of workers engaged in the nationwide public transportation industry and social service industry, and the si branch of the si branch of the Korea Public Transport and Social Services Trade Union (hereinafter “the Intervenor’s labor union”) consists of the Intervenor B and the Intervenor’s labor union consisting of workers working in the Plaintiff company.

On July 11, 2014, following the resolution of the disciplinary committee, the Plaintiff taken a disciplinary action against the Intervenor B against the Intervenor B for one month (from July 15, 2014 to August 14, 2014).

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

1. A violation of matters determined by the Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Disciplinary Reason 1”);

2. A violation that requires a report to the company within three days from the time of a change in personal circumstances with directors, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "grounds for disciplinary action No. 2");

3. Forced to cause enormous damages to the company by causing a traffic accident twice (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Reason 3");

4. Refusal of interview and violation of instructions on several occasions (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 4”);

5. On September 11, 2014, participants in the first inquiry tribunal of the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission who stolen goods without permission of the company (hereinafter referred to as “Disciplinary Reason 5”) asserted that the instant disciplinary action constituted unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practices involving disadvantageous treatment and control and intervention in the operation of a trade union on the ground of trade union activities.