1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Central Labor Relations Commission rendered the Central Labor Relations Commission’s order 2014 Section 590 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The Inspector of the Review Decision is a corporation that operates urban bus transportation business using 197 full-time workers, while the plaintiff (B) was employed on May 18, 201 and served as an urban bus driver on May 18, 201.

The Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary action on February 11, 2014 (hereinafter “instant suspension disposition”), which was seven days of suspension from office (from February 15, 2014 to February 21, 2014) (hereinafter “instant suspension disposition”), and reached the retirement age under the collective agreement on February 28, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff had caused a traffic accident on December 31, 2013 and January 25, 2014 while operating urban buses.

On February 21, 2014, pursuant to the rules of employment and collective agreement to the effect that the intervenor re-employments employees who have attained the retirement age upon commission, the intervenor held a re-employment screening committee on February 21, 2014 and determined the non-employment as a result of the examination of the plaintiff's re-employment, and the intervenor dismissed the plaintiff on February 28, 2014 without concluding

(hereinafter “Disposition of Retirement.” The National Trade Union of Public Transport and Social Services (hereinafter “Public Transport Labor Union”) to which the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff belong, alleged that the instant disposition of suspension constitutes unfair suspension from office and unfair labor practices, and that the instant disposition of suspension from office constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, and filed a request for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On May 19, 2014, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy for unfair labor practices on the ground that “the plaintiff has already reached the retirement age and has no interest in the application for remedy,” while dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that “the refusal to conclude a contract on the job after the retirement age does not constitute dismissal,” and dismissed the application for remedy for unfair labor practices on the ground that “the refusal to conclude a contract on the job after the retirement age does not constitute unfair labor practices.”

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission is the first inquiry court on August 11, 2014.