2015Guhap4297 Revocation of the Request for Remedy against Unfair Dismissal

Gyeongwon Passenger Transport Corporation

The identity of the member of Ansan-si (Seongdong) 138

The representative director shall be the civil secretary.

Law Firm LLC (LLC) LLC

Attorney Kim Jong-he

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Hadry materials, transmission of a litigation performer

○ Kim

The Central Rolosophala

Attorney Kang Jae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

July 14, 2015

September 17, 2015

1. On February 12, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission’s decision on February 12, 2015, which was rendered between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant with respect to the relevant case for the second remedy application, shall be revoked.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part resulting from the participation is borne by the Intervenor, and 90% of the remainder is borne by the Intervenor, and 10% of the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

Paragraph 1 of this Article shall also apply.

1. Details of the decision made by the retrial;

A. On September 8, 1996, the Plaintiff ordinarily employed 100 workers and provided passenger transportation services; (c) the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was employed as a bus driver on the part of September 8, 1996.

B. On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) on the bus driven by the Intervenor on May 31, 2014, the Intervenor did not voluntarily dispose of the traffic accident without going through the Federation of the National Bus Transport Services (hereinafter referred to as “voluntary disposal”), and (b) on June 12, 2014, the Intervenor did not voluntarily dispose of the traffic accident (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1”; (c) on the bus driven by the Intervenor on May 31, 2014, the Intervenor’s failure to board the bus, and (d) the Intervenor’s failure to board the bus on the bus, and informed the Intervenor of the reason for disciplinary action (hereinafter referred to as “the reason for disciplinary action”) to stop using the passenger’s 1st, 2000 won on the bus that was driven by the Intervenor on June 12, 2014, and then the Intervenor’s failure to take passengers on the bus, and (d) the Intervenor’s failure to take passengers on the bus, and attempted No. 214.

C. On September 22, 2014, the Intervenor asserted that the dismissal of the instant case constituted unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi District Labor Relations Commission for unfair dismissal. On November 18, 2014, the Gyeonggi District Labor Relations Commission was not recognized as hiding an accident involving passengers Kim Man, and the remainder of the grounds for disciplinary action is recognized. The dismissal of the instant case was subject to a disciplinary action on the ground that the dismissal of the instant case constitutes unfair dismissal.

D. On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the aforementioned initial inquiry court and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On February 12, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry court (hereinafter “instant initial inquiry”).

【Ground of Recognition】 Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The parties’ assertion

1) Of the grounds of disciplinary action No. 1, whether there was a concealment of an accident on passengers Kim Mad Co., Ltd.

① On May 31, 2014, in light of the fact that the Intervenor was at the bus driven by the Intervenor on May 31, 2014, when the passenger knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife

② Defendant and Intervenor: (a) was examined by the Intervenor immediately after the accident, whether the Intervenor was injured on the Kim Man legal base; (b) the Intervenor did not consider the need to inform the Plaintiff of the above accident because Kim Man legal base was fine; (c) the Plaintiff was aware of the Kim Man legal base accident; and (d) the Intervenor did not have any intent to conceal Kim Man legal base accident through a voluntary treatment, and thus, it is difficult for the Intervenor to deem that there was an intention to conceal Kim Man legal base accident. In light of the above,

2) Whether disciplinary action is appropriate

① Although the Plaintiff prohibits the Plaintiff’s strict prohibition, the Intervenor voluntarily handled the accident by paying the agreed amount to the victims of the accident at least twice. Moreover, the Intervenor’s verbal abuse to the passengers Kim Madle on several occasions before the number of unspecified passengers, with a focus on the degree of misconduct, such as impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation who is engaged in high-speed passenger transportation services including Kim Madle, and the Intervenor’s voluntary disposal of the passenger Madle’s Madle’s accident was discovered, and the Intervenor received instructions from the Plaintiff to voluntarily handle the accident, and thus, it is highly likely that the dismissal of the instant case would violate the said instructions.

② 피고 및 참가인 : 참가인이 임의처리한 사고 2건 모두 경미한 사고인 점 , 참가 인이 장기간 원고 회사에 근무하면서 회사 발전에 기여한 점 , 승객 김◎◎이 참가인의 버스 운행 중 사고로 합의금을 지급받은 후 멀쩡하게 버스에 타는 모습을 보고 화가 나 우발적으로 김◎◎에게 폭언을 한 점 등에 비추어 보면 , 이 사건 해고는 참가인에 게 지나치게 가혹하다 .

(b) the relevant provisions;

Rules of Employment

Article 49 (Types of Disciplinary Actions)

A company shall not dismiss, suspend from office, suspend attendance, or take other disciplinary action without justifiable grounds, and the extent of disciplinary action.

The suspension of attendance at work under the following classification shall be determined by the personnel committee for deliberation, and the period shall be:

Other disciplinary action shall be deemed to have been taken by the submission of a explanatory note, a letter, a weekend, a written oath, etc.

of the corporation.

5. Dismissal: Loss of the status as an employee, and termination of the employment relationship; and

Article 52 (Aggravated Punishment)

If an employee commits an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall submit a statement of circumstances and reprimand him/her:

5. A person who lowers the quality of passenger transport service by verbal abuse, speech, or behavior to passengers;

8. When the following traffic accidents have occurred by negligence of the driver:

1) A traffic accident of less than 1.5 million won in mountain due to an accident.

2) A substitute or a self-accident: A traffic accident of less than 500,000 won in bulk;

11. A driver who violates any of the following provisions while driving:

(v) cause of inconvenience in traffic, such as passage through a stop without stopping or a stop;

Article 55 (Dismissal)

If an employee falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall be subject to disciplinary action:

11. Where he/she prevents in and out of the company and fails to comply with legitimate instructions of the company (commercial).

35. Where he/she fails to take measures and obligations after the occurrence of a traffic accident, and is loaded in a ship or an accident;

In the case of concealment or voluntary disposal

C. Determination

1) Of the grounds of disciplinary action No. 1, whether there was a concealment of an accident on passengers Kim Mad Co., Ltd.

On May 31, 2014, the Intervenor: (a) on the bus driven by the Intervenor, the passenger knife the bus door was closed before the passengers knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife; and (b) on the bus knife knife knife knife.

2) Whether disciplinary action is appropriate

In light of the following circumstances, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Intervenor, it is reasonable to view that there is a reason to assume that the Intervenor has the responsibility to the extent that it is impossible to continue employment contract under social norms, even if considering the various circumstances asserted by the Intervenor, the dismissal of the instant case does not constitute an unlawful act of deviating from or abusing the authority to exercise disciplinary discretion.

A) Article 55 subparag. 35 of the Rules of Employment stipulates that the case of voluntary disposal of a traffic accident shall be defined as grounds for dismissal, without taking measures and obligations after the occurrence of the traffic accident, and the case of voluntary disposal of the accident shall be determined as grounds for dismissal. The purport of the provision of voluntary disposal of the traffic accident as such is that the voluntary disposal of the traffic accident is prohibited from being used by the administrative agency or the user as a means of concealing the traffic accident, and thereby, the safety of passengers is infringed, and the public nature of the transportation business may be threatened. However, even though the plaintiff was informed of the fact of voluntary disposal of the traffic accident by the passenger knife and received instructions from the plaintiff that the passenger knife would not arbitrarily handle the accident, even though the degree of damage caused by the above two accidents is not significant, the intervenor's voluntary disposal of the accident is not only easy but also the possibility of criticism by failing to comply with the plaintiff's instructions.

나 ) 참가인은 승객 김◎◎에게 합의금을 지급하고 사고를 임의처리한 후 김◎◎ 이 다시 자신이 운전하는 버스에 타려고 하자 앞문을 열지 않고 승차를 거부하였다 . 그러던 중 다른 승객들이 버스에 타려고 하자 마지못해 버스 문을 열었고 이에 김◎◎ 이 다른 승객들과 함께 버스에 타자 김◎◎에게 " 택시 타고 다니지 왜 버스를 타고 다 니냐 " , " 19년 운전생활 하면서 너 같은 년은 처음이야 " 라고 말하면서 욕설을 하였으며 신호대기 등으로 버스를 정차할 때에는 운전석에서 일어나서 김◎◎을 쳐다보며 김⑨ ◎에게 삿대질을 하면서 욕설을 하였다 . 참가인은 버스에 다른 승객들이 있었음에도 김◎◎이 버스에 탈 때부터 버스에서 내릴 때까지 계속해서 김◎◎에게 폭언을 하였고 이를 견디지 못한 김◎◎은 참가인을 경찰에 신고하였다 . 참가인은 버스 운전기사로서 승객의 안전을 책임져야 할 지위에 있음에도 오히려 승객에게 폭언을 하고 운전에 전 념하지 않는 등 승객에게 불안감을 주는 행위를 하였다 . 또한 다수의 승객들이 위와 같은 광경을 목격하여 참가인의 위와 같은 행위로 원고의 명예가 훼손되는 결과가 초 래되었을 것으로 보인다 . 위와 같은 참가인의 폭언의 경위 , 정도 및 그 결과에 비추어 볼 때 참가인의 비위 정도는 가볍지 않다 .

C) When the intervenor was aware of the fact that he voluntarily handled the traffic accident, it is possible for the intervenor to repeat the voluntary treatment in the future in light of the fact that the plaintiff provided the plaintiff with the support from other companies, and our company did not understand why why is why it would be prohibited from voluntary treatment, and that it did not understand the purport of prohibiting voluntary treatment, and that it was intended to keep the experience of the accident, which is the criteria for the license of the individual taxi, "in order to protect the experience of the accident, which is the basis for voluntary treatment."

D) On July 6, 2011, the Intervenor brought a traffic accident while driving a bus on or around July 6, 201, and resigned on August 19, 201, but returned to the Plaintiff Company on September 6, 2011.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges anti-competence

Judges Kim Yong-ho

Judges Seo-sung