1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs A, Seoul Trade Union, the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff A, A.

1. The circumstances leading to the decision on reexamination of this case

A. The status intervenor of the parties is a corporation established as a non-profit corporation under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Employment and Labor based on the Act on the Establishment and Management of Public-Service Corporations on July 1, 2003 and employed approximately 47 persons to operate a social job support business for the unemployed.

Plaintiff

A is a person who was employed by the intervenor on June 5, 2006 and worked as the team leader at the growth support team, and the plaintiff B is a person who was notified of the termination of the employment contract on July 31, 2013 while the intervenor entered the employment contract with the intervenor on August 1, 201 and entered the contract as a contractual worker on July 31, 201.

Plaintiff

A trade union is a regional unit labor union established on January 7, 2001 and established on January 7, 2001 for workers in Seoul.

The “D” comprised of some of the workers belonging to the Intervenor was a structural change to the division of the Plaintiff Trade Union on May 8, 2013 (hereinafter “the division of the Plaintiff Trade Union”) and the number of the members of the division of the Plaintiff Trade Union is 24.

B. The Plaintiff B was subject to a disciplinary measure for one month of salary reduction on May 10, 2013 by an intervenor for his/her failure to perform his/her duties, etc., and the Plaintiff A was subject to a disciplinary measure for two months of salary reduction on May 13, 2013 due to his/her failure to perform duties, and was mitigated from the disposition of salary reduction for one month during the review procedure held on June 7, 2013.

C. On July 17, 2013, the Intervenor notified Plaintiff B of the termination of the labor contract as of July 31, 2013, as the Intervenor’s refusal to convert into a regular position was rejected by the personnel committee for Plaintiff B’s regular position. D.

(1) On August 9, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) by asserting that each salary reduction disposition against Plaintiff B and A and refusal to convert Plaintiff B to regular employees constituted unfair disciplinary action and unfair and unfair dismissal and disadvantage treatment.

(2) The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) on October 7, 2013 shall be the Intervenor B and A.