1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall include all parts resulting from the defendant’s participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor Company is incorporated on June 14, 1999 and has been incorporated for the same year.

7. A company which takes over the racing business headquarters from N Co., Ltd. on 16. 10 and ordinarily employs 880 full-time workers, manufactures and supplies automobile parts, such as automobile parts, such as a power generator, a starting scooter, etc., to complete vehicles, and operates a business such as designing, manufacturing, selling, and conducting business affairs as a general commercial company.

B. From August 13, 1986 to June 11, 1993, the plaintiffs are all members of the O's union (hereinafter "O's union") or the O'o-o-o-o-o-dong Branch P Branch P Branch (hereinafter "the instant branch") as shown in the following table, from among those who were employed by the participant company as members of the participant company and worked as a promotion or employee of the service sector, as seen in the following table:

1. The Intervenor was subject to a three-month disciplinary measure of suspension from office against the Intervenor Company on the same grounds as the Plaintiff’s grounds for disciplinary action and the grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant suspension disposition”).

On February 18, 191, the position of the labor union No. 1 for the date of disciplinary action on the date of job entry. 1 A A on August 13, 1986, B B to the members of the branch association on April 22, 1991, 3 C to the members of the branch association on May 23, 191, 4D 191, "4 members of the branch association on July 21, 1989" 5 E on November 1, 1990, "6 members of the branch association on November 6, 1992" 7 members of the branch association on April 18, 198, G 7 members of the branch association on April 18, 198, "Article 88 members of the members of the branch association on September 19, 199 to the members of the association on September 19, 199.

C. On February 24, 2011, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant suspension order was unfair and applied for remedy against unfair suspension of business and unfair labor practices to the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. On April 27, 2011, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ request for remedy.

On May 11, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. The National Labor Relations Commission applied for reexamination on July 14, 201.