logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2021.01.14 2019구합84697
공정대표의무위반시정재심판정 취소청구의 소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including those resulting from the participation in the lawsuit.

Reasons

The grounds for the decision on re-examination are as follows: (a) the Intervenor B Limited Partnership Company B (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor Company”) affiliated with the Defendant is a corporation operating urban bus passenger transportation business; and (b) the Intervenor C Trade Union assisting the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor Union”) is a trade union established on October 14, 1997 with workers engaged in land transportation business on April 20, 201; and (c) approximately 230 employees of the Intervenor Company E join the said Intervenor E’s association with its branch office established on April 20, 2013.

As a trade union established on May 21, 2018, the Plaintiff established the E branch office on September 19, 2018 and worked for approximately 10 workers of the Intervenor Company to the said Plaintiff E branch office.

On April 9, 2019, the Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Intervenor Company and the Intervenor Company with the labor union office pursuant to Articles 13 (Provision of Facilities Facilities) and 63 (Union Education) of the 2018 Organization Convention to Plaintiff E, or refusal to assign new recruitment training hours to the Southern Regional Labor Relations Commission violates the duty of fair representation.

Recognizing that “a request for correction was made” and requesting correction thereof.

On June 3, 2019, the Southern Regional Labor Relations Commission made efforts to provide the Plaintiff with an office by requesting the Intervenor to jointly or separately use the office of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor Union.

Whether to provide an intervenor's office or not is determined through consultation between the plaintiff and the plaintiff. Therefore, the intervenor company has a duty to provide the intervenor's office desired by the plaintiff.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The trade union office shall be provided within a reasonable scope in consideration of the number of union members of each trade union, conditions of enterprise facilities, etc.

that person has breached the duty of fair representation immediately;

It shall not be readily concluded.

In addition, the participant company or the intervenor union has allocated the time of education to the specific union when the new employment is provided.

arrow