logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.03.28 2012구합33805
부당해고및부당노동행위구제재심판정취소
Text

1. The Central Labor Council on August 28, 2012, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor, shall be the Central 2012 Supplementary Sea 521 and the Vice-No 150 (Joint).

Reasons

(6) On March 18, 1996, the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was established on December 1, 1993, and using 610 full-time workers and ordered the Plaintiff to engage in automobile parts manufacturing business; on October 1, 201, the competent mp-WS Branch B branch (hereinafter “instant trade union”); on October 21, 201, the date of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor (hereinafter “instant dismissal”); on December 21, 2012, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor issued an order to collectively reject the application for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant dismissal”); on December 29, 2011, the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor’s order not to work at night on December 30, 201; and on December 14, 2011, the Plaintiff’s order not to interfere with the Plaintiff’s work at night; and on March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff’s order to collectively reject the application for disciplinary action.

【Unfair labor practice】 A disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s misconduct is not a disadvantageous measure on the ground that the Plaintiff is a trade union member.

On August 28, 2012, the first inquiry court of the contents of the decision made on the retrial on August 28, 2012 recognized the grounds for revocation of the unfair dismissal (whether the dismissal is unfair) of this case 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and the dismissal disposition of this case on the grounds therefor is legitimate.

[Whether unfair labor practices are committed] The inquiry court is affiliated with the first inquiry court.

The plaintiff's dismissal of this case constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices for the following reasons, in fact that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire argument as to the purport of the review decision of this case.

arrow