1. On September 12, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered the central measure against the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor joining the Defendant against the dismissal of unfair dismissal.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiffs are those who joined G Child Care Center (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”) operated by the F Welfare Center (hereinafter “instant Welfare Center”) as an affiliated organization to the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) and were working as infant care teachers.

B. On December 4, 2012, the Intervenor decided to take disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) against the Plaintiffs for three months of salary reduction (from January 2013 to March 2013), each of which grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”), on the grounds that “the Plaintiff interfered with the installation of CCTV installed in the instant childcare center classrooms with verification vinyl, and failed to comply with the instructions for removal of vinyl for the head of the instant childcare center without justifiable grounds.” The Intervenor notified the Plaintiffs on December 7, 2012.

C. The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disciplinary action constituted an unfair disciplinary action and applied for remedy to the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission. On May 6, 2013, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted all the Plaintiffs’ request for remedy on the ground that “the grounds for disciplinary action is recognized, but it is excessive to take a disciplinary action.”

The intervenor appealed against this and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy by the plaintiffs on September 12, 2014 on the ground that "the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized, and the disciplinary action is appropriate."

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the intervenor did not install and remove CCTV within the child-care center of this case without prior agreement with the trade union in violation of the collective agreement, and therefore, the CCTV was covered by the CCTV to resist it.