2012Nu1251, cancellation, etc. of the decision to review unfair dismissal and remedy unfair labor practices

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

10. J

11. K;

12. L.

13. M;

14.N

15. 0

16. P;

Q. Q.

18. R

19. S.

20. Telecommunication

21. U;

22. V

23.W;

24. X

25. Y

26, Z.

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

AA Stock Company

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap5742 decided December 16, 2011

. 5, 2013

May 30, 2013

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff A, C, D, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, P, Q, Q, Q, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z that orders the revocation of the dismissal or unfair suspension in question under any of the following subparagraphs shall be revoked:

2. On January 10, 2011, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the relevant part of the review ruling rendered by the Plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, E, F, G, H, I, J, P, Q, Q, Q, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, and Z as to the relevant part of the review ruling rendered between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor joining the Defendant with respect to the case of unfair dismissal and unfair dismissal, unfair suspension, and application for review of unfair labor practices.

3. All appeals filed by Plaintiffs K, L, M, N, and 0, remaining appeals filed by the remaining Plaintiffs and appeals filed by the Intervenor joining the Defendant are dismissed.

4. Among the total litigation costs arising between the plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, H, G, H, J, P, Q, R, T, U, V, W, X,Y, Z and the defendant, the part resulting from the participation in the lawsuit is borne by the above plaintiffs and the defendant, respectively. The remainder is borne by the above plaintiffs and the defendant, respectively. The part resulting from the participation in the appeal between the plaintiffs K, L, M, N,O and the defendant is borne by the defendant, and the remaining part is borne by the above plaintiffs, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

On January 10, 2011, the Central Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision on review (hereinafter referred to as the "decision on review") with respect to cases involving unfair dismissal, unfair suspension from office, and application for reexamination of unfair labor practices between the plaintiffs and the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "participating") by consolidating 1126, 1159/No407, and the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor") shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. Plaintiffs: Each part of the judgment of the first instance against the Plaintiffs falling under the part of the order to revoke under the following, shall be revoked, and the part concerning unfair labor practices between Plaintiff K, L, M, N,O (hereinafter “Plaintiff K, etc.”) and the Intervenor and the rest of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Plaintiff A, etc.”) shall be revoked, respectively.

B. The Intervenor (Plaintiff K, etc.): The part against the Defendant and the Intervenor in the judgment of the first instance against the Plaintiff K, etc. shall be revoked, and each of the claims against the Plaintiff K, etc. corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. Status of the parties

(1) The plaintiffs are those who are the executive officers or members of the AB Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the "AB Trade Union") or the ABP PP branch (hereinafter referred to as the "PP branch") of the AC branch (hereinafter referred to as the "AC branch") of the ABP branch (hereinafter referred to as the "PP branch") who were subject to three months of dismissal or suspension from office from the intervenors on July 26, 2010 and July 29, 2010, while they were employed by the intervenors in each of the dates stated in the attached Form 1, who were employed by the intervenors and served as the participants.

(2) The intervenor is a company that manufactures automobile parts using 880 full-time workers at the above address and supplies them to the complete tea company such as Hyundai Motor Company.

(b) Procedures for appeal;

(1) On October 4, 2010, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted an application for remedy of unfair disciplinary action against Plaintiffs D, E, and K from among the Plaintiffs, and made an initial inquiry court to dismiss the remaining Plaintiffs’ application for remedy of unfair disciplinary action and the Plaintiffs’ application for remedy of unfair labor practice.1)

(2) On January 10, 201, the National Labor Relations Commission: (a) accepted the part of the Intervenor’s application for reexamination against Plaintiff D, E, and K on January 10, 201; (b) revoked the initial trial tribunal; and dismissed the Plaintiff D, E, and K, etc.’s application for reexamination; and (c) rendered the instant reexamination decision that dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application for reexamination. [Grounds for recognition] Evidence A, Nos. 1, 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Whether the part concerning the illegal disciplinary action is legitimate

(A) Some of the members of the AC branch’s structural change from May 19, 2010 and June 7, 2010, convened by the AF, made a resolution of structural change to a AA trade union and selected as an executive officer from an extraordinary general meeting of May 19, 2010 and June 7, 2010. However, the AC branch’s structural change to a AA trade union, which is a company-level trade union, is null and void from among the above extraordinary general meeting resolutions, as it cannot be deemed an independent trade union. AF is premised on structural change, and a resolution of structural change is null and void as long as a resolution of structural change is null and void. AF branch’s collective agreement concluded between the chairperson of the AAAB union and the participant’s representative director, the AC branch’s disciplinary committee is composed of five labor-management members. Accordingly, in organizing the AC branch’s disciplinary committee for disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs, a member of the AA branch’s disciplinary committee shall be composed of the Plaintiff’s members selected by the relevant disciplinary action or other disciplinary action committee.

① The grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs were impossible to recognize it, or the period of prescription was imposed 60 to 90 days prior to the date of holding the disciplinary committee, and ② each disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs was excessively excessive and excessive.

(2) Whether the part concerning unfair labor practice is lawful

Each disciplinary action against the plaintiffs is an intervenor's unfair labor practice that results from the abuse of the plaintiffs' trade union activities and AC branch meetings, and thus constitutes an abuse of control, intervention, and disadvantage.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On February 4, 2010, in order to improve the repair cost structure of guard workers, five persons wishing to convert production from among 13 guard workers of No. 1 and No. 2 factory of February 1, 2010 who wish to convert production is placed in production, and the remainder is exclusively in charge of secondary factory guard work, and the court ordered the first factory guard work to be entrusted to the service company.

B) On February 5, 2010, AC Branch decided to take industrial action with the affirmative votes of 92% with the consent of 92% at the general meeting of its members, and operated a lock-out with a view to reducing the amount of production to 10 hours from February 9, 2010 to February 12, 2010. From February 16, 2010 to the aforesaid industrial action, the intervenor conducted a lock-out with a view to completely prohibiting the entry of the Intervenor’s crew factory and the entire commercial factory by AB union members, including the Plaintiffs, from February 16, 2010 to 0:3:00, the AC Branch members, etc. were allowed to enter the national highway around 11:45, 200, 2:3:00, 3:3:00 of the company meeting and the company meeting were held on March 23, 2010, and 1:3:3:0 of the company meeting and the company’s entrance.

(D) On March 9, 2010 and March 16, 2010, the 20th 2nd 2nd 1st 5th 7th 7th 7th 2010 and the 1st 5th 2nd 5th 7th 7th 7th 2010, the members of the 2nd 8th 2nd 5th 2nd 8th 1st 5th 2nd 1st 5th 5th 201st 5th 1st 5th 206th 2nd 1st 5th 206th 2nd 1st 5th 5th 201st 2nd 1st 5th 201st 2nd 5th 2nd 1st 5th 201st 2nd 1st 3th 201st 2nd 2nd 201st 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 201st st st 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 201st.

F) On June 5, 2010, the Intervenor ordered the Plaintiffs to receive education for returning to work from June 8, 2010 to June 15, 2010. However, most of the Plaintiffs rejected the above education and deserted the head of a district office of education without permission. In addition, on June 8, 2010, the Intervenor revoked his transfer to Plaintiff A, B, C, H, and J, a full-time officer of the AC branch, and issued a personnel order for production.

(2) When the process of structural change to a company-level trade union of AC branch has become long-term, some union members of AC branch organized a lock-out on April 20, 2010, and a “AF and AI organization” (joint representative: AF and AI). On May 18, 2010, AF announced that a general meeting shall be held on May 19, 2010 with a structural change of AC branch as an agenda item; on May 19, 2010, a general meeting of union members (hereinafter referred to as “the first general meeting”) with 544 of 601 union members, among 601 union members, was held to make a structural change to AA trade union of each company-level, a subdivision of AAC branch, a company-level trade union, and passed a resolution to elect AF chairperson and AJ as a secretary general.

(B) On May 24, 2010, the executive officers of the AC branch continued to assert that there is a defect in the procedures for convening the first general meeting and that structural change is impossible, 471 union members, including AF, demanded the head of the Daegu Regional Labor Agency Branch Office to nominate a general meeting convening authority. On the same day, the head of the said branch office recommends the Plaintiff to hold a general meeting holding a structural change as an agenda item, and requested the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission to designate a general meeting convening authority on May 25, 2010.

(C) On June 3, 2010, the president of the AB union and the head of the AB union and the head of the AB union and the head of the AB union announced that the AC branch will hold a general meeting on June 10, 2010 on the agenda of structural change. However, on June 4, 2010, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission decided on June 4, 2010 that AF shall be designated as the convening authority of the general meeting, and accordingly, designated AF as the convening authority of the AC branch. On June 4, 2010, the AF announced the convening authority of the general meeting on June 4, 2010, 550 of the 601 members of the AF held a general meeting (hereinafter referred to as the "second general meeting") who attended the 550 members of the 601 members of the AF branch of the industrial trade union to amend the AA trade union's structural form, and elected the AAJ as the president.

(3) Process of the disciplinary procedure against the plaintiffs

(A) On May 31, 2010, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiffs of the attendance of the Disciplinary Committee held on June 14, 2010, and requested the said AA Trade Committee to notify five disciplinary members of the list of five disciplinary committee members for the formation of the Disciplinary Committee. After being notified by AFO of five disciplinary committee members including AF, the Disciplinary Committee was organized with five disciplinary committee members of the employer. On the other hand, the Plaintiff, as the president of the branch of AC, appointed Plaintiff A, as a worker disciplinary committee, and notified the intervenors of the appointment of Plaintiff H, H, G, F, and I as workers disciplinary committee members, but all of them were excluded. However, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiff did not constitute the Disciplinary Committee as the disciplinary committee members selected by the Plaintiff who has legitimate authority to select workers as workers disciplinary committee members, and all of the Plaintiffs did not attend the said Disciplinary Committee, and the Intervenor held the disciplinary committee on June 14, 2010 to July 27, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry and film of Gap 5 through 9, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, Eul 3, 6 through 12, 14, 18, 23 through 26, 43 through 46, 50, 51 through 59, 68, 69, 75 through 100, and 121 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether the part concerning the illegal disciplinary action is legitimate

First, we examine whether the intervenor undergoes legitimate procedures for the disciplinary action of this case against the plaintiffs, such as the disciplinary committee which has decided the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs prior to the grounds for disciplinary action and the judgment on disciplinary action against the plaintiffs.

A) Whether a resolution on structural change is valid

1) As to the organizational change of a trade union, Article 16 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) provides that matters concerning a structural change shall undergo the resolution of a general meeting on the premise that a person subject to organizational change is a trade union, and the attendance of a majority of the incumbent union members and the consent of two-thirds or more of the union members present. While a trade union remains in existence, an organizational change shall be permitted only to the extent that it is recognized as substantially identical to the union before and after the alteration in light of the effect of an organizational change that a union succeeds to the property relationship of the union before the alteration and the status as the principal agent of the collective agreement after the alteration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du1734, Apr. 11, 200). A branch or chapter of an primary industrial occupation, regional labor union, or chapter of a trade union, whose business or workplace is entitled to independent working conditions determination, shall be an independent organization with independent rules and its own ability to independently conclude collective bargaining and collective agreements with respect to the organization or its unique matters.

2) When considering the following facts and circumstances as a whole, the AC Branch cannot be deemed an independent trade union which has the ability to independently conduct collective bargaining and sign collective agreements with regard to the matters unique to its organization or members while performing its activities as an independent organization with independent rules and executive organs, and thus, the AC Branch cannot be deemed the subject of organizational change. Thus, AC Branch cannot be the subject of organizational change.

① The AC branch rules were enacted for the internal operation of the sub-committee within the scope of the AB union rules pursuant to Article 50 of the AB union rules, and most of those provisions are identical to the provisions of the AB union sub-committee rules, and there are only some differences in expressions, and Article 4 of the AC branch rules provide that "the matters to be resolved upon by the AB union Central Committee shall be implemented in accordance with the matters to be resolved upon, and the sub-committee shall report to the general meeting or the representatives of the sub-committee and automatically amend the AB union rules."

2) According to the rules of the AC Branch, AC Branch is engaged in activities for the purposes of the AB labor union and the branch (Article 4), members of the AB labor union shall obtain approval for joining the AC Branch in accordance with the AB labor union rules (Article 5), members of the AC Branch shall be affiliated with the AB labor union rules (Article 6), members of the AC Branch shall not make any decision contrary to the matters to be resolved by the AB labor union and the branch (Article 13), collective bargaining of the AC Branch shall be in accordance with the policies of the AB labor union and the branch (Article 36), and collective agreement shall be concluded upon delegation by the chairperson of the AB labor union. If a labor-management opinion is reached with the assent of the chairperson of the AB labor union, a member of the AB union shall finally enter into a contract with the chairperson of the AB labor union (Article 37), and the dissolution or withdrawal of the AC Branch shall be limited to cases where the AB union or the entire AB union members withdraw from the AB union.

(3) Article 4 (1) of the AB Trade Union Regulations on the procedure for joining a union member is not possible to withdraw from a group through the relevant general meeting, and the procedure for withdrawing a union member shall be dealt with after obtaining approval from the president of the branch, the head of the chapter, and the chairperson, which explicitly prohibits a group withdrawal through the relevant general meeting.

④ According to Article 66 of AB Trade Union Rules, collective bargaining rights are under AB Trade Union and all collective bargaining representatives within a union shall be the chairperson (Paragraph 1), and the chairperson may form a negotiating committee under his/her control and delegate his/her right to negotiate (Paragraph 2), and may not delegate his/her right to negotiate to a corporate bargaining unit (Paragraph 3).

SD AC branch has an organization such as a general meeting, a board of representatives, a standing executive committee, etc. (Article 10), and a branch president, a site president, a secretary, and a member of the audit committee (Article 24) as an executive officer of the union in accordance with the rules, but all of them are stipulated by the branch rules of AB labor union (afford).

6. Article 21 subparagraph 2 of the AC Branch Rules provides that "the matters concerning the alteration of the organizational form" as a special resolution. However, the main text does not have any specific content as to the merger and division of a subdivision. Rather, in light of the circumstances that stipulate that the merger and division of a subdivision shall obtain approval from the operation committee of AB Trade-Aid Branch, it cannot be interpreted that a regional subdivision’s structural change is only subject to a special resolution (the majority of the members present at the regional subdivision and the majority of the members present at the regional subdivision) with respect to a regional subdivision’s structural change, based on the phrase under subparagraph

On February 5, 2010, the AB Labor Relations Commission requested that the plaintiff AB, the president of the AC branch of the AC branch of the AC branch of the AC branch of the AC branch of the AC branch of the industrial action, grant early approval for the implementation of the voting on the opposition to the AC branch of the AB Labor Relations Coordination Branch of the AC branch of the AC branch of the industrial action. On the same day, the AB Labor Relations Commission approved the Emergency Management Committee of the AC branch of the AC branch of the AC branch of the Association, and accordingly, the AC branch of the AC branch of the industrial action was conducted after the voting was held at the AB union of the AC branch of the branch of the Association. The AB union of the AB union of the Labor Relations Commission applied for mediation of the industrial action even in case the supplementary bargaining

8) Wage negotiations of AC branch shall be conducted only through collective bargaining with AB industry users organizations, including intervenors, by AB, and the unit bargaining of the said branch was delegated by the chairperson of the AB labor union, the head of the AB union, the head of the AB union, and the head of the AB union, and the AB also entered into a collective agreement under the name of the chairperson of the AB union.

(9) In the case of a subdivision unit bargaining, negotiations shall be conducted under the supervision of the president of the racing branch delegated by the chairperson of the AB labor union, and the details of the supplementary agreement shall also be considerably involved, such as making a request to be reflected in the AB labor union branch, and the president of the branch, etc. shall participate in the supplementary bargaining as a practical negotiating member, but the final authority to conclude the supplementary agreement was the chairperson of the AB labor union or the head of the racing branch delegated by him/her.

3) Therefore, the resolution of the first and second general assembly of the instant case with a structural change to a AA Trade Union, a company-level trade union, is null and void. AF is also null and void on the premise that the said structural change is valid. Moreover, a resolution to elect AF as the chairman of the AA Trade Union’s trade union is lawful.

1) Article 25 subparagraph 1 of the collective agreement between the chairperson of the AB Trade Union and the participant representative director of the AC Branch shall be comprised of five members of the AC Branch Disciplinary Committee, respectively, and the same number of labor and management under the collective agreement is to ensure procedural fairness in exercising disciplinary rights, to guarantee workers' right to participate in the action, and to check the resignation of the company. As seen above, five members of the AA Trade Union disciplinary committee who have decided disciplinary action against the plaintiffs were selected by the AA Trade Union Chairperson on the premise that the resolution of structural change and the above resolution are valid, and therefore, it is examined whether such a disciplinary committee is defective.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts of recognition, the evidence mentioned above, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1 through 5 of evidence Nos. 2, and the purport of the whole arguments, the disciplinary committee of this case, which is composed of workers disciplinary committee members, shall have been selected by the plaintiff A or at least AB labor union members (the chairperson of the AB labor union or the head of the AB labor union) in the composition of the disciplinary committee for disciplinary action against the plaintiffs who are union members AB labor union members. However, the disciplinary committee of this case, which is composed of workers disciplinary committee members, by those selected by AF, shall have significant defects.

① In the composition of a disciplinary committee for AB union members, labor-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-based collective agreement between the chairperson of AB union and the representative director of the intervenor. As such, in the composition of a disciplinary committee for disciplinary action against the plaintiffs who are union members of AB union-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-management-based selection of disciplinary committee members of AB union-based management-management-management-management-based management-management-management-related union members, and

② As seen earlier, the resolution of the first and second general assembly of this case on a structural change is null and void, and even in this case where a resolution to appoint AF as the chairman of the AA Trade Union is also null and void on the premise that such resolution is valid, the legally constituted a disciplinary committee by a disciplinary member selected by the AF without any authority to represent the AC branch violates the collective agreement (as at the time of the protocol, many members agree with the resolution on a structural change, and the racing viewing by accepting the report on the establishment of a trade union against the AA trade union, etc., the Intervenor, who is the representative of the AA trade union as the representative of the changed AA trade union, was reliance on the worker’s legitimate disciplinary member, thereby constituting the AF disciplinary committee. In addition, even though the AF elected by the chairman of the AA Trade Union at the first and second general assembly was supported by many members of the AC branch, the qualifications of the disciplinary committee cannot be cured, and both the Plaintiff and the remaining members of the AF disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, who are the chairman of the disciplinary committee for the Plaintiffs, are subject to be disciplined.

④ In the instant case where there are many grounds for disciplinary action applicable to the Plaintiffs, there is room to view that the above five disciplinary committee members selected by the Plaintiff A have a de facto interest in examining the individual disciplinary action if they participate in the disciplinary action against other disciplinary committee members. However, all of them are able to represent the rights and interests of workers as the executive members of the AC branch, and thus, labor and management in the composition of the disciplinary committee is consistent with the purport of the same number. Even if the grounds for certain grounds for disciplinary action are the same, the degree of participation, tenure of office, disciplinary action and reward and work performance of the disciplinary committee, which are all different factors to be considered in a disciplinary action, shall not be readily concluded that the participation of the disciplinary committee members designated by the Plaintiff A is unlawful.

⑤ Furthermore, even if both the Plaintiff A and five disciplinary members appointed by the Plaintiff A, the president of the branch of the AC, and his/her five members are deemed inappropriate to participate as disciplinary members of the AB labor union in the composition of the AB labor-management committee, in view of the fact that labor-management takes part in the collective agreement concluded between the chairperson of the AB labor union and the intervenor representative director, the Intervenor appears to have requested the AB labor union (the chairperson of the AB labor union or the head of the AB labor union branch of the AB labor union) to select disciplinary members of the AB labor union for the composition of the disciplinary committee, and accordingly, should have constituted the disciplinary committee.

6. Although at the first and second meetings of this case where AF was null and void, it cannot be readily concluded that the content of granting the authority to recommend a disciplinary committee member to AF in relation to the disciplinary action is included in the intent of the union members who elected AF as the chairperson at the time.

C. Validity of disciplinary action

The resolution of disciplinary action against the plaintiffs conducted by the disciplinary committee which has a serious defect in the composition of the committee is procedural defect. Accordingly, the pertinent dismissal or suspension disposition against the plaintiffs of the intervenor as stated in the attached Form 1 column for disciplinary action against the intervenor also has a serious defect in the procedure. Therefore, each of the above disciplinary actions should be null and void without any further review as to the existence of the grounds for disciplinary action and the legitimacy of the disciplinary action.

(2) Whether the part concerning unfair labor practice is lawful

(A) If an employer gives unfavorable treatment to a worker, it is found that the employer is on the ground of a worker’s legitimate trade union activity, in substance, differently from the ground where the worker is on the surface.

w, the disadvantageous disposition should be deemed to be an unfair labor practice. However, in a case where an employee was disadvantageously treated due to a justifiable reason, even if the employer was stimulatedly in the worker’s labor union activity or when the employer was presumed to have an employee’s intention to reflect the labor union, the reason cannot be deemed merely an unfair labor practice since it does not constitute an unfair labor practice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da54960, Jun. 23, 2000; 2008Du13972, Jan. 27, 2011).

B) Therefore, in addition to the purport of the evidence and the entire arguments as seen earlier, even though some of the misconduct committed by the Intervenor against certain Plaintiffs is recognized as false, it can be recognized that the rest of the misconduct committed by the Intervenor is actually true, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is sufficient to recognize that the dismissal or suspension disposition against the Plaintiffs on the ground of the above grounds for disciplinary action is to practically suppress the Plaintiffs’ trade union activities, and that it is merely merely a part of the surface room, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, despite the invalidity of the pertinent disciplinary action against the plaintiffs (e.g., dismissal or suspension of office) in the judgment of reexamination of this case, all of the parts which judged that the relevant disciplinary action against the plaintiffs is not unfair, are legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant in this case, the part seeking the revocation of the corresponding disciplinary action (unfair dismissal or unfair suspension) in the review of this case against the defendant is justified, and the part seeking the revocation of each of the above disciplinary action should be dismissed on the premise that each of the above disciplinary action is an unfair labor practice. As such, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part seeking the revocation of the corresponding disciplinary action (unfair dismissal or unfair suspension) in the review of this case between the plaintiff Gap and the intervenor is unfair, and the part seeking the revocation of the corresponding disciplinary action (unfair dismissal or unfair suspension) in the review of this case between the plaintiff Eul et al. and this part of the judgment of first instance shall be revoked, and the corresponding part of the judgment of first instance against the above plaintiffs in this case shall be revoked, and the corresponding part of the judgment of first instance shall be revoked, and the part seeking the revocation of the corresponding disciplinary action against the plaintiffs in this case between the plaintiff Eul et al. and the intervenor shall be justified, and the part seeking the revocation of the corresponding part of the review of this case between the plaintiff K et al and the intervenor shall be dismissed.

The presiding judge, public judge and senior judge;

Judges, Appointment and Civility

Judges Cho Jong-sung

1) AD and AE, who were members of the Committee at the time, were subject to three months of suspension from office, and filed an application for remedy against unfair disciplinary action with the Plaintiffs with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission.

In response, the Intervenor applied for a review to the National Labor Relations Commission, but the Intervenor was dismissed, and thereafter the Seoul Administrative Court 2011

An action seeking the revocation of the new trial ruling was dismissed by the old 6233, and the subsequent appeal is dismissed by the intervenor.

In both courts 2012-4038 and Supreme Court 2012Du26173, both dismissal judgment was declared final and conclusive.

(2) Supreme Court Decision 2008Da2241 Decided March 12, 2009 and the Daegu High Court Decision that reversed and remanded pursuant to the above Supreme Court Decision, Supreme Court Decision 2009Na209 Decided December 4, 2009

2584 see Supreme Court Decision 2584

3) See the above Daegu High Court Decision 2009Na2584, etc.

4) Each security guard’s participation in the violence against the Plaintiff A, D, F, M, N, Q, V, and Z, the part on which the Plaintiff’s slandered banner was installed against the Plaintiff G, and the Plaintiff 1

The part of exposure to a disaster due to an unreasonable action, the part of participation of security guards in violence, the part of taking the lead of illegal occupation against the plaintiff J, and the part of slander against the company

Part of installation, part of participation in violence by security guards, part of illegal strike against plaintiffs 0 and operation part of the hinterland of illegal occupation, plaintiffs S, W, X, and Y

Part of refusal to extend holidays to each part of the refusal to extend holidays, the part in which the Regional Labor Relations Commission of the Plaintiff U is the same as the case;