1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs associated with the participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a public corporation that employs approximately 28,00 full-time workers and engages in C transportation, C vehicle maintenance, etc.

B. D Organizations (hereinafter referred to as “D”) were established as the organization of participants and workers engaged in the C industry, and the number of members is about 20,000, and five regional headquarters under its control (Seoul, Daejeon, Daejeon, Permanent Residence, South, and Busan).

C. The Plaintiff, as an intervenor’s employee, served as a vehicle manager of the Daejeon Vehicle Office, and D was the president of the Central Dispute Countermeasures Committee as the head of the Daejeon Local Headquarters.

On February 28, 2014, the Intervenor took disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “D’s illegal refusal of collective labor provision (hereinafter “instant refusal”) undertaken from December 9, 2013 to December 31, 2013 by the Plaintiff constitutes the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) under Articles 6 (Duty of Good Faith), 8 (Prohibited Acts), 32 (Duty of Good Faith), 33 (Prohibition of Deserting Office), 37 (Duty of Guarantee of Dignity), 38 (Duty of Deserting Office), and 52 (Disciplinary Grounds)1 to 5 of the Intervenor Personnel Regulations.

E. On May 19, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disciplinary action constituted an unfair disciplinary action and applied for remedy to the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On September 15, 2014, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy.

F. On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination seeking the revocation of the determination of the Chungcheongnamnam Regional Labor Relations Commission under the Central Labor Relations Commission of 2014, 1089, and 1105/Mano172 (Joint).

On March 5, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the above request for reexamination (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the instant decision on reexamination, whether the part of the unfair disciplinary action against the Plaintiff is legitimate or not.