(영문) 서울행정법원 2013.11.8.선고 2013구합11482 판결

1. The National Labor Relations Commission: (a) on March 20, 2013; (b) unjust conduct between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant on March 20, 2012;

The decision of review made on a petition case for reexamination of dismissal shall be revoked.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part resulting from the intervention by the Defendant’s Intervenor is assessed against the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the

of this section.

Purport of claim

The order is as set forth in the text.

Reasons

1. Details of the decision made by the retrial;

A person shall be appointed.

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

A person shall be appointed.

A. Party’s assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) The background of dismissal;

In May 2012, the intervenor company shall be equal in North Korea to the Korean Public Transport and Social Services Workers' Union.

chapter***** * Branch (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trade union”) was established, and the intervenor company has become this company.

As to the plaintiff who was the secretary general of the trade union for the purpose of destroying the trade union

Unfair labor practices by dismissing after being issued to the head of the cultural business division who is not qualified as a trade union member.

of this case, the court shall block the application for remedy on the ground of this case, and the president of the branch of the trade union of this case

The grounds for disciplinary action shall be formulated and dismissed for one to two months after the dismissal of the plaintiff, and the transmission of the core members shall be made.

○ An action plan, such as setting and dismissing grounds for disciplinary action within the year after the dismissal of the above two persons

Then, the plaintiff was dismissed in accordance with this series of Plans.

B) Absence of grounds for disciplinary action

(1) As to the ground of appeal No. 2

The plaintiff shall have a department of cultural business in accordance with the conciliation of reconciliation conducted by the Chungcheong Northern Regional Labor Relations Commission.

The plaintiff is the actual reason for the intervenor's proposal to mediate the settlement while waiting for the issuance of the place.

person who is not entitled to be employed by the chief of a department not entitled to be employed to facilitate dismissal.

Since it was refused to issue an order to the Director of the Department, this is unfair labor of the intervenor company.

An act to cope with an act is justified.

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 6

The plaintiff has become the head of the department in charge of business management and accounting since July 2010.

such duties were transferred to the office of the representative director whenever the affairs of general administration, personnel affairs, etc. are transferred to the office of the representative director.

c) The documents of the business administration, claiming that the intervenor company was not transferred, are the documents of the panel of the business administration that the intervenor

documents prepared by other members of the department who are not the members of the department after the settlement of the plaintiff;

and is not a document to be transferred by the plaintiff.

(3) As to the ground for appeal No. 9

The plaintiff was instructed to proceed with the procedure for employees' consent to the revision of the rules of employment.

No such amendment shall be made effective from July 1, 2010 as a result of the investigation conducted by the Cheongju District Office of Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor.

The disciplinary action that the plaintiff voluntarily reported because the business rules were not reported to the labor authority;

No fact is true.

C) Improper of a disciplinary decision

Even if a cause for domestic disciplinary action is recognized, the intervenor company shall disarm the trade union.

reasonable between the time of occurrence and the date of dismissal of most of the grounds for disciplinary action.

A plaintiff at intervals of time, and the degree of misconduct is also uneasible so that he/she should be dismissed by social norms.

of this section. The Corporation shall not be deemed to be responsible for such

D) Violation of procedures

The Intervenor Company did not specifically state the grounds for dismissal in the notice of dismissal, and therefore, the Intervenor Company

Dismissal with respect to dismissal is null and void in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.

2) Intervenor’s assertion

A) As to the ground for disciplinary action No. 3

The Red○○○○ of a participant company shall investigate the misconduct of the customer support team leader with respect to the ○○○.

(B) submit to the Plaintiff information related to the business affairs of ○○ by sending the information prior to the business cooperation (Evidence 1) to the Plaintiff.

Although there was a request for dismissal, the plaintiff neglected this, and without reporting to the representative director, retired ○○○.

The decision-making was processed.

B) Disciplinary Reason 6

In the review procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission, the Plaintiff Nowon-gu and the Habrid (including materials)

It was promised to return, and it will be returned to March 29, 2013 even through the trade union's official text.

Although it was promised to do so, on May 28, 2013, that part of the business files were removed and returned to Nowon-do.

Since it is only a reason for the disciplinary action, it becomes a cause for the disciplinary action.

C) Disciplinary Reason No. 9

As to the revised rules of employment, the plaintiff who is a working-level officer shall hear workers' opinions and consent procedures.

If the employer does not proceed and does not report the revised rules of employment to the labor authority, so the company does not have the company report the revised rules of employment.

The penalty is imposed.

B. Facts of recognition

1) On January 6, 2003, the Plaintiff is in charge of personnel affairs, labor affairs, general affairs, accounting, etc. with his/her membership on January 6, 2003

The head of the management support team from July 1, 2006 and the head of the management support team from July 1, 2006 and July 7, 2010.

1. From the beginning, each of the heads of the departments in charge of business administration has served as the head of the department.

2) On January 201, 201, the Intervenor Company shall have one advertising copy for the business management team belonging to the business management division of the business management division.

In April of the year, the accounting affairs of the Ministry of Business Management were transferred to the direct control of the representative director, and the period of June of the same year.

After changing the name of the business administration division to the customer support division, the representative director of the personnel affairs in October of the same year.

on January 1, 2012, which shall include accounting, personnel affairs, general affairs, and computer affairs under the representative director.

The general task team was established.

3) On June 29, 2012, the Intervenor Company dismissed the Plaintiff from office of the customer support department at the same time.

The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism abolished the guest support division and newly established the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism on July 1, 2012, the Plaintiff on July 1, 2012

It was transferred to the deputy head of the Internet Team.

4) On July 1, 2012, the Plaintiff joined the instant trade union and on July 11, 2012, after becoming a member of the instant trade union.

The commission filed an application for remedy against the foregoing transfer order, and on August 23, 2012, the above application was filed by the commission.

On the date of examination of the Labor Relations Commission, the plaintiff and the intervenor company shall be issued as the head of the cultural business division.

(1) A settlement was made to the effect that the intervenor company, and the intervenor company, on August 24, 2012, shall be a person on July 1, 2012, the plaintiff

The Ministry of Culture and Tourism issued a retroactive order to the head of the department of cultural business (hereinafter referred to as "the personnel order of this case").

5) The Red ○○○○ of the Intervenor Company’s general affairs team on August 21, 2012: (a) the Intervenor Company’s representative director was the Plaintiff’s representative director.

C. e-mail sent to the Department that contains a plan to dismiss the worker after returning the worker to the Department, the note

The necessary details are as follows:

The e-mail title of August 21, 2012: He reviewed the highest scenario that the representative director and the company would incur the burden to the minimum, following consultation with the National Labor Act and the National Labor Agency on unfair labor practices and the issuance of unfair transfer; and

1 . 신OO , 이□□을 부서장으로 발령 복직시킨다 .( 기대효과 : 자동적으로 노동조합을 탈퇴시켜 부당노동행위에 대한 진정을 막아 회사 부담을 경감시키고 1개의 국가기관과 상대함으로 전력을 쏟을 수 있다 . )2 . 신○○는 결격 사유가 많아 즉시 해고절차가 가능하기 때문에 편집부서장으로 불러들인 후 징계위원회에 회부하여 해고처리한다 .( 기대효과 : 삐뚤어진 시각으로 노측에 기울어 있은 편집부에 긴장감을 주고 이를 기회로 편집부를개혁하고 안정화에 힘쓸 수 있다 . )3 . 이□□을 즉시 해고할 경우 노동조합 해체를 위한 노조탄압으로 몰고 갈 공산이 크기 때문에문화사업부서장으로 불러들여 신OO 해고 후 약 1 ~ 2개월의 시간차를 두고 징계사유를 만들어 징계위원회에 회부하여 해고 처리한다 .( 기대효과 : 노동조합을 만든 핵심인물이 해고됨으로 노동조합 와해의 가속도가 붙고 직원들에게경각심을 심어줄 수 있고 동시해고 시 금번처럼 2명과 싸워야 하고 똘똘 뭉치는 효과를 만들어 고독함을 줄 수 없어 서로 의지하고 격려하며 맞대응할 수 있음 . )4 . 송○○ 부서장은 노동조합 핵심인물로 상기 2명에 대한 해고 처리 후에 연내 징계사유를 만들어 징계위원회에 회부하여 해고 처리한다 .( 기대효과 : 제대로 된 실적도 없으면서 부당하게 급여를 수급하는 부서의 수장을 정리함으로써 성실하게 근무하는 임직원들에게 사기를 높여주고 공정한 관리를 회사가 하고 있다는 메시지를 심어줄 수 있음 . )( 중략 )화해조정은 심판위원이 강력하게 밀어붙여 줄 것이며 신OO , 이□□이 어쩔 수 없이 받아들이도록 종용할 것이기에 전략적으로 접근해야 실수가 없을 것입니다 .( 중략 )기타 의견 : 4층과 5층 복도에 CCTV를 설치하여 노동조합이 편집부를 장악하려는 음모를 차단하고이□□ 등 노동조합원들의 근무지 이탈과 불성실한 직무수행 등으로 징계할 수 있는 사유를 모을 수있으며 , 사후에 보안 및 방범예방효과도 있어 설치를 적극 검토하여 주시기 바랍니다 .( 중략 )노동조합 진압은 최소 6개월에서 1년이란 시간을 두고 법적으로 하자 없는 적법한 절차를 지켜서

It is possible to eradicate the work process.

6) On August 30, 2012, the Plaintiff, which became aware of this fact, resigned from the position of the director of the cultural business division.

The notice for use shall be publicly announced in the intra-company bulletin board, and it shall not be returned to the head of the cultural business department.

The new ○○○○○○, where the 1st head of the 1st head of the f1st head of the f1st, has been removed from the head of the department in July 1st of the past and has been unfairly converted into the Internet business department, and there has been a dispute over whether the order of personnel management with the company has been appropriate for two months. As a result, I would have restored the company to the original position on August 23 of the last two months. I would not simply have the head of the department find the dispute over the company for the two months.I would like to have the head of the department simply find the head of the department.I would like to fight to recover the honor and respect of the actual order of personnel management on the side of the company without one reply, and I would like to have the new head of the ○○○○○ Office selected the new one with the new one, which was the best for the new one to return to the original office, and I would like to have the new one to return the new one to the new one.

7) On September 7, 2012, the Intervenor Company established a personnel committee for the Plaintiff on September 7, 2012 as follows;

The Plaintiff decided to dismiss the Plaintiff as of October 1, 2012, and on September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff.

The reasons and date of dismissal were notified.

1. Grounds for Disciplinary Action: The manager who is required to act on behalf of the employer who is engaged in illegal trade union activities is actively involved in the activities against the interests of the employer by joining or participating in illegal trade unions (including activities to attract union members).

3. The head of the department who is obligated to keep the records of 20 years off to the outside of office and to keep the records of 20 years off to the outside of office without the consent of the 20th executive officers and employees of the 2nd office without the consent of the 2nd office of the 0th office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 3rd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 3.

9. An act of returning to the head of the ○ Cultural Business Department and leaving the place of work of the 4th floor cultural Business Department without the consent of the representative director. From May 5, 2010 to June 6 of the same year, the act of failing to obtain the consent of the representative director and the executive officers and employees of the rules of employment as to the original text of the rules of employment, which was reported during the period from May 2010, and failing to perform the duty of notifying the executive officers and employees

8) The Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition for review. However, the Review Personnel Committee was established on September 27, 2012.

The intentional request for retrial was dismissed and dismissed as the original judgment became final and conclusive.

9) The Red ○○○○ of the General Affairs Team, in addition to the e-mail of August 21, 2012, shall also take place on September 5, 2012 and September 25, 2012.

e-mail was sent to the representative director of the intervenor company in relation to the means of responding to the trade union.

(2) The main contents are as follows:

On September 5, 2012: (i) e-mail title: He may leave the annual allowance and salary as of the New ○○ Department disciplinary case (for first, among them), although it is difficult to pay performance rates; (ii) it is not possible to take measures if there is an employee's complaint after September 7, 200; (iii) even if borrowed from the bank, it may prevent the fluench from paying the bonus at once. Based on labor advice, it is necessary to establish a basis for the work process through the installation of CCTV, and conduct certain work on illegal trade union activities for five years. It is necessary to install CCTV. The CCTV will be installed in the next five years; (iv) It is nothing more than 1% of the annual premium; and (v) it is necessary to suspend the use of the domain name and arrange the rest of the executive officers and employees of the insurance union with the aim of blocking the use of the domain name in the future; and (v) it is necessary that the head of the insurance union and the executive officers and employees of the insurance union will not be dismissed.

2012. 9. 25. e-mail title: the Bank of Korea*** Work-Related Affairs 1. Business 4. Business : E-mail No. 2000,000,000,000,000 won and 1.0:00,000 won and 1.0:00,000 won and 1.0:0,000 won and 2.0,000,000 won and 3.0,000 won and 1.0,000 won and 1.0,000,000 won and 1:0,000 won and 1:0,000 won and 1:0,000 won and 1:0,000 won and 2:0,000 won and 3:0,000 won and 1:0,000 won and 3:0,000 won and 1:00,000 won and 1.0,000.

5) The leader of the General Affairs Team Red ○○○○: Limit of KRW 80,000 (for the purpose of organizing a trade union, the limit of KRW 800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5-7, Eul evidence Nos. 1-3, each of the arguments No. 1-3,

The purport of the whole

C. Determination

1) Whether grounds for disciplinary action exist or not

A) Disciplinary Reason No. 2

Although the plaintiff did not comply with the personnel order of this case, the intervenor company of this case

the principal personnel of a trade union, including the Plaintiff, shall be collected to the extent that the organization and activities of the trade union

A plan was planned to dismiss the Plaintiff even if it made the reasons for guidance, and the instant personnel order was issued by the Plaintiff.

(1) The personnel order of this case is merely a series of measures to easily dismiss.

As it constitutes a part of the party labor practice, the Plaintiff is in itself null and void. Accordingly, this part is followed by the Plaintiff.

The grounds for disciplinary action shall not be deemed the grounds for disciplinary action, and the plaintiff shall not be deemed the cultural business division in the internal bulletin board.

The act of posting a letter to resign the head of the department shall not be subject to disciplinary action.

B) Disciplinary Reason No. 3

The customer support team head of the customer support team of the participating company shall present a resignation report on May 9, 2012 by the participating company.

The plaintiff, who was the head of the customer support department at the time, has dealt with the retirement of this ○○.

The Intervenor was informed by the General Affairs Team that the Intervenor was investigating the misconduct of the ○○○.

Notwithstanding the above, the grounds for disciplinary action are that the plaintiff accepted the written resignation without reporting the representative director.

In addition, after the plaintiff accepted the letter of resignation, the General Team immediately after the receipt of the letter of resignation to ○○.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not report to the representative director only with the evidence of No. 1

It is not sufficient to recognize that ○○ retired from office, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C) Disciplinary Reason 6

This part of the grounds for disciplinary action is that the plaintiff was in custody at the time of the office of business administration.

It appears that the intervenor did not transfer to the intervenor company and did not return the company's assets, e.g., external h.

The plaintiff did not transfer the work data to the company only with the statement of Eul evidence No. 4

It is difficult to recognize otherwise, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and only causes the circumstances asserted by the intervenor company.

Ro The Corporation does not return to its members any hump which it provided to its members for use.

There is no sufficient explanation as to whether the grounds for the disciplinary action are the reasons for the disciplinary action.

D) Disciplinary Reason No. 9

A participant company received a draft amendment of the rules of employment from an advisory labor force around May 2010.

In fact, the procedure for hearing workers' opinions or seeking consent with respect to the above revised rules of employment

The revised rules of employment did not proceed and did not report to the Ministry of Employment and Labor;

An intervenor company due to a failure to report shall be subject to an administrative fine of 400,000 won from the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office.

A. The facts of imposition of Section 1, 2, 2, 2, or 3 are not disputed between the parties or are not subject to any dispute

Each entry may show the overall purport of the pleading. The whole of these facts shall be considered.

In the absence of the procedures for gathering opinions even after having received the draft revised rules of employment from the employee;

No liability shall be imposed on the plaintiff who is a working-level employee, and this part shall be subject to such liability.

the part that the plaintiff voluntarily reported the revised rules of employment. The part that the plaintiff voluntarily reported the revised rules of employment should be the grounds for guidance.

In light of the fact that the intervenor company was subject to an administrative fine due to the failure to report, this is not true.

In itself, the grounds for the disciplinary action against the Intervenor shall not be the same. However, the Intervenor Company shall be subject to the disciplinary action against this part.

the rules of employment are derived from misconception that the rules of employment have been reported;

Reports also do not perform as one of the duties to be handled by the Plaintiff after the amendment of the rules of employment.

The degree of the misconduct shall be determined including the part of the procedures for collecting opinions.

2) legitimacy of a disciplinary decision

Ultimately, recognition as legitimate grounds for disciplinary action shall proceed with follow-up procedures for amendments to the rules of employment.

This section includes the fact that the rules of employment have not been reported, as well as that the rules of employment have not been reported.

The grounds for the disciplinary action in the section cannot be deemed to be serious and only two years prior to the failure to perform the duties.

(2) The intervenor company’s dismissal of the Plaintiff and included the grounds for the disciplinary action.

Since it is judged that dismissal of the plaintiff for this reason has abused the discretion of disciplinary action.

the Plaintiff’s assertion as to procedural breach is invalid. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to procedural breach is not necessary to further examine.

The dismissal of the employee is an unfair dismissal and the decision of review of this case, which was otherwise decided, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per the disposition.

Judges

Judge Lee Sung-soo

Judges Lee Byung-hee

Justices Kim Tae-hun

참조조문

-근로기준법 제27조

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2014.10.23 2013구합18650

-서울행정법원 2018.09.20 2017구합87180

-서울행정법원 2020.12.24 2019구합86792

-서울행정법원 2018.06.12 2017구합74924

-서울행정법원 2018.08.30 2017구합75088