The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of lawsuit, including the part arising from the participation in the lawsuit, shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the Review Decision

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company established on April 21, 1978 and engaged in security service and building management business using approximately 6,500 full-time workers.

On February 9, 2004, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was employed by the Plaintiff on February 9, 2004 and served as a business employee in the sports project team branch office of the E business division (hereinafter referred to as the “military branch office”), and the class of the Intervenor is represented

B. On March 26, 2019, the Plaintiff held a disciplinary committee and took disciplinary action against the intervenors in class 2 on the grounds of the reasons for the following disciplinary action:

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Committee” and “instant disciplinary action”). Although an intervenor filed an application for review, the Plaintiff held a Review and Disciplinary Committee on April 23, 2019 and resolved on the same disciplinary action as the instant disciplinary action.

On January 17, 2019, the Disciplinary Reason 1 of the instant Disciplinary Reason No. 2 (Article 76(5) of the Rules of Employment) No. 2 (Article 76(5) of the Rules of Employment), without justifiable grounds, to refuse the direction of the head of the branch office to hold a meeting to take a place of business on February 12, 2019, without justifiable grounds, and (3) of the Disciplinary Reason No. 3 (Article 76(5), 76(17) of the Rules of Employment) without permission of the head of the branch office on February 15, 2019 (Article 76(5), 76(17) of the Rules of Employment) No. 4 Disciplinary Reason No. 4 (Article 76(5), 76(17) of the Rules of Employment) without prior report and approval to the head of the branch office on February 18, 2019 (Article 76(5) and (17) of the Rules of Employment).

C. On April 19, 2019, the Intervenor asserted that the instant disciplinary action was an unfair disciplinary measure and unfair labor practice based on the Intervenor’s trade union activity, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.

[F. G. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission shall recognize the grounds for disciplinary action on June 17, 2019 and Nos. 3 and 4.