209Guhap23129 Revocation of the Request for Remedy against Unfair Dismissal

○○ Incorporated Company

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

1. Kim○-○

2. Kim○-○

3. Ma○○

4. Kim○-○

September 22, 2009

October 15, 2009

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the cost of participation.

The decision made by the Defendant on May 6, 2009 was revoked on May 6, 200 as to the case where the Defendant filed an application for a new trial for unfair change of occupation 2009 Maritime Affairs ○○ between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision made by the retrial;

A. On December 22, 2008, the Plaintiff Company is a company that employs 300 workers and engages in manufacturing and selling cosmetics. The intervenors received a transfer order (hereinafter referred to as "the former transfer order of this case") from Seoul Special Metropolitan Point Business Team Mc (Makeant) on December 22, 2008, when they were employed as production workers.

B. On January 2, 2009, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy for unfair change of occupation with ○○ Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant order was inappropriate, and the said Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized that the instant order constitutes an abuse of personnel rights due to a change in the terms and conditions of employment, and issued an order to cancel that order and reinstate the Intervenor from his former position.

C. On March 20, 2009, the Plaintiff Company was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on March 20, 2009, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination to the same effect as the initial inquiry court on May 6, 2009 (hereinafter “instant initial inquiry”).

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. Party’s assertion

The plaintiff company newly established a specialized store business team in order to revitalize the market business in which the business difficulties are serious due to the aggravation of the sales performance. Among the employees of ○○ factory production workers who have a large number of idle human resources, the plaintiff company selected a qualified business worker and issued a transfer order to the professional store business team MC. Thus, the transfer order of this case is not unfair.

In this regard, the defendant and the intervenors asserted that the order to transfer the participants who worked in the production plant from the time of entry without seeking any prior consultation is unfair because it constitutes abuse of personnel rights.

(b) Facts of recognition;

(1) From 2003 to 2003, the Plaintiff Company created a cumulative person with approximately KRW 00,00 due to business deterioration, and among them, the business operator in the market accounts for approximately KRW 65% of the total amount of loss.

(2) On November 3, 2008, the Plaintiff Company established a specialized business team to be in charge of the development and management of a new direct trade store on the basis of strengthening the market operation in Seoul Special Metropolitan City where large cosmetics specialized stores are concentrated for extreme managerial difficulties. On the other hand, the Plaintiff Company decided to recruit as part of the specialized business team personnel among the existing management personnel or factory production personnel, and transferred nine workers of ○○ production workers, including the intervenors, to Seoul on December 22, 2008, taking into account the existence of Seoul’s annual notice, current residence, etc.

(3) Since the Intervenor entered the Plaintiff Company as an employee in the production sector, the Intervenor was in charge of only production sector for about 10 years prior to the instant transfer order. Specifically, the Intervenor Kim-○ was in charge of the semi-finished product management; the Intervenor Kim-○ was in charge of the production team management; the Intervenor Kim-○ was in charge of the secondary material management of the production team; the Intervenor Kim-○ was in charge of the production team operation; the Intervenor Kim-○ was in charge of the interim process of the production team operation; and the Intervenor Kim-○ was in charge of the return of the goods team.

(4) The Plaintiff Company’s work is largely divided into a production and a sales position. According to the personnel regulations of the Plaintiff Company, the employment portion from the employment to the sales and production position is specified (Article 7 of the Personnel Regulations), and the sales sector is also divided into a four-year regular university’s humanities and a social position; the (n) production sector is a major in the public announcement or higher; and (b) production sector is a physically healthy woman of less than 18 to 40 years of age (Article 12 of the Personnel Regulations). There was no example from the Plaintiff Company to the transfer of the previous order from the Plaintiff Company to the business position.

(5) Specialized store business team Mc (Makeant) visits cosmetic-specialized cosmetic stores within a given area to publicize cosmetic products to shop owners, order orders, etc., and the primary work is to newly develop a specialized direct trade store.

(6) The intervenors were immediately dispatched from 10 A.M. to 17:50 p.m. to 20 p.m., on December 26, 2008, only 10 P.m. to 17 p.m., 50 p.m., (1) the Intervenor was dispatched to the specialized store operating team.

(7) Prior to the instant transfer order, the Plaintiff Company did not seek consultation with the employees concerned, but notified the labor union of the above reorganization proposal on November 3, 2008. On November 6, 2008, the labor-management council held on November 6, 2008 was unable to accept unilateral reorganization from the labor union. However, the Plaintiff Company ordered the instant transfer order on November 22, 2008.

(8) After the relocation order of this case, when the labor union and workers continue to take place, the Plaintiff Company entered into a final agreement on February 11, 2009 with the labor union to reconvene the specialized store business team by receiving support from the employees of the specialized store business team through the intra-company recruitment process. The Plaintiff Company reconvened four workers other than one worker who agreed to work for the specialized store business team and the intervenors, who were transferred to the specialized store business team, as of June 25, 2009.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 5, Evidence No. 6, evidence No. 7, evidence No. 10, evidence No. 12, evidence No. 13, evidence No. 15, evidence No. 17-2, evidence No. 18, evidence No. 20-1, evidence No. 21-2, and evidence No. 21-1, No. 22, and evidence No. 22-1 through No. 4, the testimony by ○○○○, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

C. Determination

As a matter of principle, the transfer or the transfer of a worker belongs to the authority of the employer who is the personnel management authority, the employer has a considerable discretion within the scope of free business, and it cannot be deemed null and void unless there are special circumstances such as contrary to the Labor Standards Act, etc. or constituting abuse of rights. Whether the transfer or the transfer or the transfer constitutes an abuse of rights should be determined by comprehensively taking into account (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du2963, Apr. 11, 200) whether the transfer or the transfer or the transfer of a worker has undergone the procedure required by the principle of good faith in the course of the transfer or the transfer or the transfer or the like, by comparing and comparing the worker's living disadvantage based on the necessity

With respect to this case, the following circumstances revealed in light of the above facts, namely, the job of the business and the production worker is employed differently from the time of employment. The contents of the job are different. The participant is naturally employed from the time of employment to the production worker and has been employed only for a long-term production factory, and thus, in the future, he would have been employed in the same occupation in the future. The plaintiff company did not receive intra-company recruitment prior to the order of the change of occupation or receive the worker's opinion, nor did it automatically selected the worker from the production worker based on whether there was a notification to Seoul, whether there was a family member, and whether there was a family member. In addition, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff company had gone through the procedure required by the principle of good faith prior to the order of the change of occupation even if there was a strong opposition to the labor union of the labor union of this case, and the plaintiff company did not have any legitimate reason for the intervenor to be in charge of the job abuse of the former participant's right to receive the transfer order of this case.

(d) Sub-committee;

Therefore, the decision of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff company's argument is without merit. 3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case by the plaintiff company is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge 000

Judges ○○○

Judges 000