1. On April 23, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission consolidates between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, with the Central 2015 No. 203/No30.

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

A. The Plaintiff is a company that is established on January 4, 1980 and operates bus passenger transport business.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) joined the Plaintiff on July 24, 2012 and served as a bus engineer.

B. From October 3, 2014 to November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff ordered the Intervenor to issue a standby order.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant standby Order”). C.

On December 2, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission for the instant standby order, and the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on January 26, 2015.

On March 4, 2015, the Intervenor appealed to the Central Labor Relations Commission and filed an application for reexamination, and on April 23, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling recognizing that the instant standby order is unfair on the ground that “The instant standby order is inherent in the nature of disciplinary action, and the need for business is not recognized, on the other hand, because it does not fall within the scope of legitimate personnel authority, such as the disadvantage in daily life is not small, and thus, is unreasonable.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Intervenor refused the Plaintiff’s ordinary business instruction and intentionally delayed departure and operation, and thus, the need to perform the instant standby order is recognized, and the Intervenor’s living disadvantage is not significantly significant.

Therefore, this case’s standby order is a legitimate personnel order conducted within the scope of the Plaintiff’s personnel authority, and thus, the review decision of this case is unlawful.

3. Determination

A. Since it is unnecessary to rearrange the labor force or adjust its supply and demand in order for the relevant legal entity to continue to maintain its activities, personnel orders, including a standby order, are, in principle, the inherent authority of the employer, who is a personnel authority.