The National Labor Relations Commission applied for reexamination of unfair labor practices No. 2016 No. 102 on September 2, 2016.

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs approximately 110 full-time workers and engages in tourism services, such as the operation of skiing grounds.

The number of the members of the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is about 30, a trade union established under the organization of the Plaintiff’s employees.

B. C was issued as the head of the Sports Business Management Team on October 1, 2010, while being employed by the Plaintiff on September 2, 1996, and D was issued as the head of the Sports Business Management Team on July 5, 1993 while being employed by the Plaintiff.

D On December 1, 2015, while C was admitted to each participant's partnership on December 2, 2015.

C. On February 23, 2016, the Intervenor Union filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that “The Plaintiff solicited C and D, a member of the Intervenor Union, to withdraw from the Intervenor Union after January 12, 2016, constitutes unfair labor practices involving the intervention in control.”

On April 22, 2016, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission received an application for remedy to the effect that “the Plaintiff recommended C and D to withdraw from the Intervenor association, and this constitutes an unfair labor practice in the course of controlling entry under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”).

On June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking the revocation of the said determination. On September 2, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said application for reexamination (hereinafter “instant reexamination decision”) to the effect that “C constitutes an employer under the Trade Union Act, and thus, the Plaintiff solicited C to withdraw from the Intervenor association does not constitute an unfair labor practices of control intervention. However, the Plaintiff solicited D as an employee under the Trade Union Act to withdraw from the Intervenor association, and this constitutes unfair labor practices of control intervention.”

[Grounds for recognition] without dispute;