1. On January 29, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a central decision between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant on January 29, 2015.

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on August 5, 1959 and engaged in the manufacture and sale of synthetic resin products.

The Intervenor joining the Plaintiff on October 26, 2009; the Intervenor C was employed on April 1, 2004; and the Intervenor D was employed on July 1, 2006, respectively; and the Intervenor joined the Korean Association of Chemical Textiles Industry Trade Union A (hereinafter “instant trade union”) around November 5, 2013.

B. On July 16, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a personnel order (transfer) against the Intervenor B as “Distribution 4 Team”; the Intervenor C as “Distribution 6 Team”; and the Intervenor D as “Distribution 5 Team” on July 17, 2015, respectively, as follows.

(hereinafter referred to as “each conversion of this case”). E CBD J FG HIK

C. On August 7, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for each conversion of the instant case, and on October 5, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that “each conversion of the instant case is justifiable and does not constitute unfair labor practices.”

The intervenors appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on November 9, 2015, and on January 29, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for reexamination on the ground that the Intervenor’s application for reexamination was accepted on the ground that it is difficult to see that the Intervenor’s application for reexamination was legitimate exercise of personnel rights because it is recognized that the need for each conversion of the instant case was necessary, and that it is difficult to see it as a legitimate exercise of personnel rights due to

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). . [This case’s ground for recognition] . [In the absence of dispute, each entry in Gap 1, 2, and 6, Eul evidence 9 (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) it is difficult to deem that the assignment of each of the conversion positions in this case is necessary to perform duties; and (b) the disadvantage of the intervenors resulting therefrom is considerably beyond the level of

In addition, personnel is related.