Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.
Reasons
1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs a tourist hotel business using 500 full-time workers.
On August 16, 1996, the intervenor joined the plaintiff and worked as a kitchen, and was working as the secretary-general of the C Trade Union (hereinafter “instant trade union”).
B. On October 21, 2016, the Plaintiff’s Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Intervenor on October 31, 2016 due to the grounds for disciplinary action “violation of the order of deceptive scheme and criminal conviction in the company”
(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) C.
On December 5, 2016, the Intervenor and the instant trade union filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that “the instant dismissal constitutes unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practices (disadvantageous treatment and intervention).”
On January 25, 2017, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed all the application for remedy by the Intervenor and the instant trade union on the ground that “the dismissal of this case exists a ground for disciplinary action, its determination is appropriate, and it does not constitute unfair labor practice.”
On February 28, 2017, the Intervenor and the instant trade union were dissatisfied therewith and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.
On April 28, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the part concerning unfair disciplinary action during the initial inquiry tribunal and accepted an application for relief corresponding to that part, on the ground that “the dismissal of this case constitutes an unfair disciplinary action but is an excessive disciplinary action,” and dismissed the application for reexamination for the same reason as the initial inquiry tribunal with respect to the part concerning unfair labor practice in the initial inquiry tribunal.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant review ruling” in the above review ruling). 【Unsatisfy ground for recognition】, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6 (including number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful.
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that disciplinary action of the dismissal of the instant case was taken on the following grounds.