beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and eight months, and one year and six months, each of the defendants B, C, D, E, F,O, and S.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendants are members of the W Trade Union affiliated with the Domine-Mon-Mon Chapter X (hereinafter referred to as the “W Branch”) as the staff of (ju)W (hereinafter referred to as the “company”).
Defendant
A is a representative of the branch president of the W branch, Defendant B, the accounting audit of Defendant C, the head of the organization division of Defendant D, Defendant F, the head of women’s department, Defendant G, H, I, J, K, L, and M, each of the representatives, Defendant N,O, P, Q, Q, R, S, and T are members of the W branch.
Criminal facts
Ⅰ. The Defendants’ joint crime [the background and circumstance leading up to the crime committed in the factory store] W Branch, following the implementation of the Work Hours Limitation System (hereinafter “Tadon”), led to the decrease in the number of paid union full-time union employees. From June 9, 2010 to the end of the strike from June 24, 2010, the Defendants asserted the current maintenance of the number of paid union full-time union employees, and were going to the strike.
However, as the company did not accept the demand for union aid and was prohibited from entering into the company by conducting a lock-out on June 30, 2010, the union members pressured the company by means of a strike against the company employees to work at the workplace or entering the company inside and leaving the company, etc.
With respect to this act, the company dismissed 31 labor union members such as Y, Z, AA, etc. who led the strike, and filed a lawsuit against four labor union members such as Y etc.
After that, in the situation where the strike is long-term, it is clear that it is impossible to prevent the implementation of the plenary system, and it is evident that the negotiation with the company cannot take place in the negotiation with the company, and the WW branch enforcement officer, from October 2010, argued that the company did not accept the existing requirements and withdraw the disciplinary action and the compensation lawsuit against the union members such as dismissal, etc., but the company did not accept the request.
Ultimately, it is hard to say that no one has earned from the inside of the union.