1. On August 19, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered the Central Labor Relations Commission’s decision as to August 19, 2015 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs approximately 70 full-time workers and engages in the sales business of printers, computer-related products, photographs, and visual equipment. The Intervenor Intervenor A trade union (hereinafter “ Intervenor A trade union”) is a company-level trade union established on April 24, 2004 for workers belonging to the Plaintiff, and the Intervenor B (hereinafter “ Intervenor B”) who joined the Plaintiff on January 4, 2001 is responsible for the chairperson of the Intervenor B’s trade union.

In November 2014, the personnel division that the Plaintiff conducted against the officers and former officers of the Intervenor trade union (hereinafter referred to as “first act”) is recognized as a subordinate labor act dealing with disadvantages.

On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff’s refusal to grant educational hours to the Intervenor’s trade union (hereinafter “second act”) recognizes that it constitutes unfair labor practices by controlling intervention.

On February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff’s act prohibiting the Intervenor’s trade union from entering the outside of the union’s office (hereinafter “third act”) on February 11, 2015 recognizes that it is an unfair labor practice in the control and intervention.

On February 10, 2015, the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action of one day of suspension from office against the Intervenor B (hereinafter “fourth act”) is recognized as an unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practice in unfavorable treatment.

On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff’s act of notifying the Intervenor’s trade union of the relocation of the union’s office (hereinafter “act No. 5”) is recognized as an unfair labor practice in the control intervention.

B. The intervenors asserted as follows, and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on February 17, 2015, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed all the Intervenor’s applications on May 7, 2015.

C. Accordingly, the intervenors filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on June 5, 2015, and the National Labor Relations Commission partially cancelled the initial inquiry court as shown in the attached Table on August 19, 2015 and excluded the part related to the Intervenor’s request for remedy, excluding the part related to the act of paragraph 5.