1. On December 28, 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission: (a) between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor joining the Defendant on December 28, 2012, part 2012, 1061, 1078.

The supplementary intervenor to the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "convenor") shall be the intervenor.

Plaintiff A, who is a member of the company that conducts the business of manufacturing chemical products using 156 full-time workers, and Plaintiff B: July 1, 2010: The ground for disciplinary action on April 17, 2012, which is the date of disciplinary action on April 1, 2006, for each kind of disciplinary action taken on April 1, 2006

1. On August 9, 201, Plaintiff A, at around 05:30 and August 11, 201, Plaintiff A, after drinking alcohol, enter a company and intrudes the company, and refusing to make a statement at the time.

2. On August 9, 201, Plaintiff B entered the company after drinking at around 05:30 on August 9, 201, and refused to make an oral statement.

3. At around 04:30 on August 11, 201, Plaintiff C entering the company after drinking alcohol, and there is no dispute over the grounds for recognizing an application for reexamination of the contents of the decision to dismiss the application for reexamination of the decision to dismiss the application for reexamination of the decision to dismiss the application, the entries of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

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

A. 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's act does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action on the part of the intervenor's company's provision that prohibits intra-company intrusion after drinking. The participant company did not take disciplinary action on the part of the plaintiff company for the reason that the plaintiff did not drink with drinking. As can be seen, the participant company was under the influence of alcohol. The plaintiff did not drink to the extent that it does not interfere with the next work or cause any other problem. Thus, the plaintiff's act does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action.

② The Intervenor Company is not subject to disciplinary action again, since it has already been reprimanded against the Plaintiffs in relation to intra-company intrusion after drinking.

③ The Intervenor Company promised not to take disciplinary action when the Plaintiffs submit a written statement. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs submitted a written statement stating the circumstances of the instant case, which led to the instant disciplinary action.