1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs approximately 1,460 full-time workers and runs the business of manufacturing, processing and painting wheelchairs, etc. A trade union is a company-level trade union established on April 1, 2014 with the organization of the Plaintiff’s workers belonging to the Plaintiff. The Intervenor is a company-level trade union established on April 1, 2014, and the Intervenor is an industrial trade union established on March 18, 2014 as an industrial trade union affiliated with the nation-wide unit (hereinafter “ Intervenor Branch”).

(2) The Plaintiff entered into a collective agreement on November 20, 2014 (hereinafter “instant collective agreement”) with A Trade Union which became a representative bargaining trade union through procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows.

(b) An initial inquiry tribunal of the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission;

1. To provide a trade union office only to A trade union prior to the conclusion of the instant collective agreement;

2. Discrimination against intervenors in the use of the old bulletin board;

3. Discrimination against intervenors in allocating the limit of time off to the extent of time off from the conclusion of the instant collective agreement

4. An intervenor under the proviso of Article 29(3) of the instant collective agreement asserts that the following acts of the Plaintiff and the A trade union (hereinafter referred to as “acts 1 through 4”) constituted unfair labor practices of the Plaintiff at the same time as a violation of the duty of fair representation, and applied for remedy to the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission on December 30, 2014. On February 23, 2015, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission partly accepted the intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “the acts of subparagraphs 1 through 3 constitute a violation of the duty of fair representation of the Plaintiff and the A trade union, but the acts do not constitute the Plaintiff’s unfair labor practices, and the Plaintiff’s request for remedy does not constitute a violation of the duty of fair representation of the Plaintiff and the A trade union or the Plaintiff’s unfair labor practices.”

C. The plaintiff, A trade union and intervenor who have rendered the review decision by the National Labor Relations Commission are dissatisfied with the review decision by the National Labor Relations Commission.