2012Guhap38411 and revocation of the Tribunal for Remedy against Unfair Disciplinary Action and Unfair Labor Practices

○ Kim

Suwon-si

Law Firm Woo, Attorney Park In-bok

Attorney Taxization

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Litigation Performers Roster

* MaMa Meal Aviation Co., Ltd.

Gangseo-gu Seoul Gangseodong 47

The representative director of the board of directors

Law Firm Han-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

June 12, 2013

July 3, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the participation, shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

National Labor Relations Commission on October 4, 2012, the plaintiff and defendant assistant intervenor (hereinafter "the plaintiff and defendant assistant intervenor") company

In the case of applying for review of unfair disciplinary action and remedy for unfair labor practices, the Central 2012 Duno 669/buno 180 (Joint) of this title

(hereinafter referred to as "the decision on review of this case") shall be revoked.

1. Details of the decision made by the retrial;

A person shall be appointed.

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

A person shall be appointed.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Absence of grounds for disciplinary action

A) Grounds for Disciplinary Action 1: The team leader of the safe operation of the intervenor company shall hold an interview with the plaintiff while meeting the plaintiff.

The plaintiff decided to conclude this issue on the line that does not bring about more problems, and thereafter the plaintiff must complete this issue.

Since the intervenor did not raise an objection to the hotel side, the intervenor company shall set aside the hotel case again for Mana.

No ground for guidance shall be used as such.

B) Grounds for disciplinary action No. 2: The plaintiff's ○○○ was a former crew member of the Mak branch office of the intervenor company.

A hotel that does not enter the seat next to the rest (block) into a seat, raises an issue of whether it is a seat, and will be a hotel.

subsection (1) of this section shall not be charged to the plaintiff himself, and shall not directly report to the head office

In the process of the bill, the ○○ has first expressed a desire to do so, and thus, it has become wrong with each other.

C) Grounds for disciplinary action No. 3: The plaintiff himself/herself with respect to the claim on the side of his/her hotel, Mas. Tran-do.

without finding the fact that the report was immediately made to the head office, and the process

No verbal abuse shall be made.

(d) Grounds for disciplinary action 4: The refusal of boarding by three passengers who have promised to allow flights by the intervenor company on the same day;

that it does not have used the flights of a competition airline, and that it is not a fact that it has been in fact

Even if this is due to the personal circumstances of passengers, and the plaintiff's act is unstable.

No sentence shall be written.

2) A deviation from or abuse of the disciplinary discretion

The fact that passengers refuse to take part in a dispute between the plaintiff and local staff members and to take part in the boarding.

The plaintiff, at the location of the atmosphere of the passengers, talks with Ms. So-called U.S., other than Tana.

The participant corporation is more responsible for giving rise to the dispute. The participant corporation is the United States ○.

No disciplinary action has been taken against the plaintiff, and three months from the suspension of office against the plaintiff is against another pilot in the past.

Details of disciplinary action (sexual harassment: two months of suspension from office, one month of suspension from air service, and landing at a high-level nomenclature;

Since the departure from a runway is too harsh than that of the suspension of air service, the intervenor company is subject to disciplinary action.

The discretion was exceeded and abused.

3) Violation of procedure

Article 76-2 (2) of the Rules of Employment provides that a person dissatisfied with a disciplinary action shall reverse the decision.

re-examination within 30 days from the date of notice of the disciplinary decision, only if it proves that the

section 35(1)(3) of this title provides that a review personnel committee shall be held and deliberated.

In light of the purport of establishing a retrial system by stipulating matters as the requirement for a request for retrial, a request for retrial is filed.

On the other hand, whether there is evidence to reverse the existing decision by holding a review personnel committee

The above provision must be interpreted, and the intervenor company shall apply to the plaintiff's request for retrial.

Since the review personnel committee was not held but dismissed, the disciplinary action against the plaintiff shall be

in violation of the procedures set forth in this section.

4) Unfair labor practice

The genuine reason for the disciplinary action against the plaintiff is the Air Force Private Sector, which was a non-members by the plaintiff's effort.

To prevent the Plaintiff’s influence as the pilot from collectively joining a trade union;

this constitutes an unfair labor practice.

(b) Relevant provisions;

The internal provisions of the Intervenor Company relating to the instant case are as specified in the relevant provisions of the attached Table.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The Intervenor Company shall provide accommodations for pilots and crew to be accommodated in the territory of Mana.

I. On November 4, 2010, in entering into a hotel license agreement with a hotel located in the Manel on November 4, 201, a hotel number:

30% of the price where the pilot, etc. of the intervenor company making a lodging in theel orders for meals or beverages;

The author agreed to receive the authorization.

2) On June 30, 201, the Plaintiff shall provide meals free of charge to the hotel staff at the time of lodging in the above hotel.

I asked whether it is possible to provide it, and hotel employees, under the contract between the intervenor company and the participant company, may provide it free of charge.

On July 3, 2011, the Plaintiff asked for free assistance even at the time of making a statement.

(1) upon refusal, the Plaintiff may make a simple appearance provided free of charge.

A request was made to use the word “bre” as the word “B”. During this process, the Plaintiff is responsible.

A telephone was requested to a person to answer it, and the other party to the telephone was first requested to answer it.

end, the plaintiff thought that he was neglected, and again sees and talks about how to 'drawing by telephone'.

The plaintiff made a statement to the effect that it can be cut, whether it is a race discrimination or not, and that it is a race discrimination, and the plaintiff on July 2011.

4. A joint hotel with the following meta, and deliver it to the total hotel manager:

The method of respecting the customers to the general manager Ales and Chnane is good. The law that leads to the extension of the customer's end is good, and the law that does not disregard the dynamic customers is good. The law that does not disregard the dynamics is good, ebbbbbbbbbbling on the 21st of this month.

3) A small hotel hotel on July 5, 201 shall be Ms. Mail-ro local staff of the Intervenor Company, Mail-do. Tan

I sent e-mail with the contents of the contract with the hotel employees. The plaintiff understood the contents of the contract with the hotel employees.

not be allowed to give accommodation to the hotel until he has accepted the conditions of his best conduct.

Ms. Tana on July 6, 201, 201 to U.S. ○○, the head of the Etha Airport Branch of the Intervenor Company

Mesday was delivered.

In lieu of e-mail content Goran Aleks that the hotel sent to Ms. Twan, the hotel opened.On the other hand, the Chnane Gary and low-scar company employees, the executive officers of Tan MI MO and marketing.On the other hand, Kim ○○○○ book was found by telephone or directly, and requested (bbak) and was extremely urgent. Although the provision of lighting was rejected (not contract terms), Kim ○○○ book captain was demanded to contact subordinate employees to include lighting and include lighting from lower-class employees to general managers.I wish to agree with the terms and conditions of the contract, and if I would act to do so to do so to low-scar team members, I will be able to respond to the order of the Kim ○○○ book.

4) On July 7, 2011 and the 13th day of the same month, ○○ is against the Plaintiff to the Intervenor’s safe operation team.

In reporting the position of the hotel in the telecom, the Schedule Coordination (Prohibition of Pela Port) shall apply to the plaintiff.

No matter whether the person in charge of the head office is in charge of the operation of the head office on the local side, a hotel use contract for the operator.

A request was made to make an order for ‘a separate progress'.

5) The Plaintiff reported to the Intervenor’s head office as above by the ○○○○○ to the Intervenor’s head office.

On July 12, 2011, 201, with the knowledge of the office, when placing ○○ to the safe operation team, only one story when placing me in the safe operation team.

The head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall identify the situation through the procedures to confirm at least the parties, after hearing and rapidly sending them.

I will audit at the time of sending the report. A person who has made this me as such shall be satisfyed.

I sent the e-mail of “.....”

6) ○○○○○○ of the Intervenor Company’s 2nd team leader with respect to the above ○○’s request

An interview, ○○, basically in communication problems and cultural differences

Recognizing that the terms of the hotel license agreement were derived from misunderstandings, the Plaintiff shall be qualified as an individual

It was pointed out that it is inappropriate to contact with a hotel, and the plaintiff does not discuss this problem any longer.

Subject to the condition that the instant case is repeated and assigned to the Plaintiff a flight duty, and the Plaintiff

The consent was also given to this.

7) On July 18, 2011, the Plaintiff did not confirm the Plaintiff himself/herself by sending e-mail to ○○○ on July 18, 201.

The claim on the side of the hotel was sent to the head office without any surplus.

8) On September 7, 2011: 17, the Plaintiff: (a) at around 17, the OZ702, which is ready to operate in the Muasa air port (Mauas air).

Port ? Incheon Airport, scheduled departure time: 12:35) out of the steering room for an external inspection of aircraft

C. Within the flag, the Plaintiff was faced with U.S. ○○. The Plaintiff was next to the rest seat of flight crew on the day to U.S. ○○.

The plaintiff was involved as a seat (block) and was found to have been a seat. The plaintiff was found to have been a seat, and the plaintiff was found to have been a seat.

In the past, it has raised an objection against the allocation of passengers without standing the seat next to it;

In this process, there was a dispute between the Plaintiff and the U.S. ○○. The U.S. ○○ caused the dispute.

The plaintiff moved to the front of the passenger room, and the plaintiff went to the outside of the airplane for an external inspection.

Upon completion of this section, the Plaintiff finds U.S. ○ and runs to the boarding area, leading ○○ to the rest area in the past.

The seat shall not be a public seat, and the head office shall be located at the head office of a hotel in the youth with no verification of the person himself/herself.

The report was at issue and the plaintiff continued to make a claim against the U.S. ○○ who intends to avoid dialogue.

During that process, half half the year and second half the year between the two. The passage between the Plaintiff and U.S. ○ and the passage between the Plaintiff and U.S. ○ is a passage.

There is a glass wall between the passenger waiting place and the waiting place.

Passengers waiting in a waiting place because they are not connected to the tent, are not connected to the Plaintiff.

○ was able to report and hear the dispute on the passage.

19) The plaintiff returned to an aircraft immediately after the dispute with U.S. ○○, Ms. Tana Ma

When the Plaintiff was aware that it was Ms. Bank, the Plaintiff had a name tag attached to the her uniforms, and the Plaintiff came to know that it was a her bank, the case of a hotel hotel of the purher.

with respect to the report of the Commission, the issue of the process of processing at the time shall be mentioned and unilaterally sound;

The Plaintiff asserted against Ms. Tan as above. The Intervenor resisting against Tan. Tan.

The plaintiff was witnessed by the staff, the operating officer, the maintenance officer, and the cleaning employee of the company Mana Airport Branch, the plaintiff

Ms. The place of port to Tan is not seen in the passenger waiting place, but the plaintiff's bath is not in the passenger waiting place.

The plaintiff set forth a claim in large sound to the passengers who had been waiting to board.

The details of the statement submitted by the plaintiff to the personnel committee of the intervenor company as to the process are as follows:

In addition, I would like to know that I would like to be insulting to the head of a young branch, and that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to get off I would like to get off I would like to get off I would like to enter I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know that I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know that I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like.

I tried to answer the question of whether it is not an unconditionally reflective one. In other words, I tried to us: I did not talk about the Breakfast, but rather speak about the Bread. I tried to speak about the Bread. I made the words, and I came into question immediately.

10) Passengers waiting in the atmosphere are who do so. The passengers who are in the atmosphere of a passenger.

Three passengers (Yap) who have been able to hear the fact that the person who was sounded by his employees is the captain.

Felisa, Yap Hackun Jr, Espiritu Mayrna) The captain who is not in control of self-determination is gathered.

The Intervenor rejected the boarding until the end, while leaving the safety of the aircraft and being unable to board the aircraft. In the end, the Intervenor rejected the boarding until the end.

The Company has taken measures to enable them to use the flights of aviation (scheduled time of departure: 12:20) to be taken by them.

11) According to the circumstances submitted by the Plaintiff to the Personnel Committee, the Plaintiff’s dismissal is due to his/her high nature.

and immediately after the existence of passengers' booms, it shall be reported by the mechanic and the staff of the branch office.

The details of this part are as follows.

He/she has returned to his/her seat and he/she has returned to his/her seat.After diving, he/she reported that he/she contests two minutes of his/her seat and that there is a need for passengers to go. After diving, he/she knows that he/she will go to his/her seat and that he/she will go to his/her seat. He/she will go to the local branch staff of the branch office, and that he/she will go to his/her seat [the memory is well known that he/she has come to go to the outside of the country], and how he/she is asked to explain how the U.S. passengers have been aware that he/she does not interfere with the flight of the same that he/she interested at the time, and that the captain is two, and that he/she is going to go to the AD, not to go to the present, but that the captain is going to go to the first flight of another captain. I/she must now explain it well.

12) On November 15, 201, the Intervenor Company

The subcommittee held a subcommittee to decide on the disposition of 's demotion' against the plaintiff, and at least a reduction in the subcommittee.

Article 8 of the Regulations on the Operation of Personnel Committee that if a resolution is made by the Committee, the Committee shall deliberate on it.

Pursuant to paragraph (2), on January 10, 2012, a Committee on Certified Copies shall be held to take a disposition of suspension for three months against the Plaintiff.

The final decision was made to B.

13) On January 31, 2012, the Intervenor Company confirmed a disposition of suspension from office for three months with the approval of the representative director.

High, the plaintiff notified the result of disciplinary action to the plaintiff on the same day.

14) The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the request for a retrial on February 20, 2012. The plaintiff's assertion as follows:

However, the intervenor company may reverse the decision of disciplinary action against the plaintiff's ground for the request for retrial.

The plaintiff's request for retrial was rejected on March 9, 2012 with no proof.

The circumstances of the principal used in the personnel management office of Korea have been prepared without clear notice of the first disciplinary action against him or her.The personnel management office of Korea has intentionally conducted a biased investigation on the basis of only the report of the head of Mai-ro branch without disregarding his or her claims in relation to the small operation in the airport of Ei-ro.M. M. M. M., which unilaterally used the investigated material in the personnel management office without disregarding his or her claims, and this is the initial promise that he or she would not have received any mental shock due to his or her failure to mention the problem.The personnel management office of Korea may not recognize the part that he or she received any mental shock.The attempt that the person in charge of the personnel management office of Korea tried to exclude the safety management team from the materials attached to the relevant materials is a monthly ticket, and it is unreasonable to suspend his or her duty in March without proving his or her assertion about what is inconsistent with the claims of the head of the airport branch of Ei-Mara.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3-6, Eul evidence 1-12, Eul evidence 1-21, Eul 1-21

Above 23 up to 25, up to 27 up to 29, up to 32 up to 37, up to 39 up to 42 (in the case of documentary evidence with a number, each number is included)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

1) Whether grounds for disciplinary action exist or not

A) On the first ground for disciplinary action

With respect to a hotel use agreement entered into by the intervenor company, the plaintiff is not a corporation but a corporation.

Although it is not desirable to file an issue with a hotel, the plaintiff's lawsuit as seen earlier is not desirable.

subsections to the hotel hotel and subsections to the intervenor corporation of the hotel shall be subject to misunderstanding with each other.

It can not be seen as an act to the extent that it is subject to disciplinary action;

The Intervenor Company shall, subject to the condition that the Plaintiff did not address this issue any longer,

as long as such measures have not been taken, the case of the port of the hotel hotel shall be included in the grounds for the disciplinary action.

It is unreasonable to do so.

B) As to the remaining grounds for disciplinary action

According to the above facts, this part of the grounds for disciplinary action is recognized as facts.

Justifiable grounds for disciplinary action falling under Article 14 subparag. 8, Article 73 subparag. 3, 9, 10, and 18 of the Rules of Employment shall be the same.

2) Whether a disciplinary decision is legitimate

If a disciplinary action is taken against a person subject to the disciplinary action for the reason of the disciplinary action, any measure shall be taken.

The decision is placed at the discretion of the person having authority over disciplinary action, but the person having authority over disciplinary action is the exercise of discretionary power.

If the disciplinary action has considerably lost validity by social norms, the person who has the authority to take the action shall have the discretionary power to take the action.

the disposition may be deemed unlawful only if such action is deemed to be unlawful and the disciplinary action shall be

Sector is an illegal disposition beyond the scope of discretion because it has considerably lost validity by social norms.

(1) The details and nature of the misconduct caused by the disciplinary action, depending on specific cases, and the disciplinary action;

Determination by comprehensively taking into account various factors, such as the purpose of achieving a disciplinary action by the system, standards of disciplinary action, etc.

such disciplinary action shall be deemed to be objectively and objectively unreasonable (and shall not be deemed to

Court Decision 200Da60890, 60906 delivered on August 23, 2002

The following circumstances, i.e., Ms. Tan, known from the foregoing facts, are:

The main date of the hotel's port shall be delivered to the head office ○○, a superior, and the report to the head office.

Ms. The plaintiff is made by U.S. ○ and there is no reason to resist Tan, ii)

Uneasy for crew and passengers by the Plaintiff immediately before the port of call without coordinating appraisal.

section 50(1)(3)(2)(3)(3)(1)(1)(2)(2)(1)

(3) The plaintiff's act is committed by other employees and passengers on board.

A company, in particular, refuses to board a passenger who became aware that the plaintiff was a captain and, in fact, refuses to board a ship.

In providing other airlines with flights, the Plaintiff may incur monetary damages to the Company.

was affected by the intervenor’s image, as well as the negative impact on the intervenor’s reputation.

(4) The grounds of disciplinary action No. 1 to No. 4, which were the grounds of disciplinary action by the Intervenor Company, are as seen above.

As such, even if the case is most severe and excluded from the grounds for disciplinary action, three months of suspension from office shall be lowered.

(5) Any dispute is not likely to arise with respect to the grounds for the second disciplinary action.

the Plaintiff’s continued resistance to ○○ who was the primary cause.

There is no disciplinary action against ○○ and there is a circumstance that is not against equity, not against equity.

In full view of the fact that the three-month disciplinary action against the plaintiff was taken against the plaintiff, and the disciplinary action was against the plaintiff.

Department In light of equity with disciplinary action against other misconduct-related persons or past pilots, etc., social norms;

It shall not be deemed that a substantial loss of validity exists.

3) Whether the procedure has been violated

Article 76 (2) of the Rules of Employment provides that a person dissatisfied with a disciplinary action shall reverse the decision.

within 30 days from the date of notification of the disciplinary decision, the review shall be requested only if it proves that it has been

The intervenor company may seek disciplinary action on the premise of the error of the court below.

(2) The collective agreement or the collective agreement, as a procedure to correct this case, appears to have prepared a review procedure; or

Where the rules of employment, etc. do not provide for a provision for requesting review of disciplinary action;

In light of the validity of a disciplinary action which did not undergo a review, a review, such as the above rules of employment, is conducted.

No provision that strictly limits the requirements of claims shall be deemed null and void.

In the instant case, the lower court erred in recognizing the facts upon the Plaintiff’s petition for reexamination.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff submitted evidentiary documents, the plaintiff's request for retrial was dismissed.

In addition, the intervenor company may not violate the disciplinary procedure.

4) Whether an act constitutes unfair labor practice

An employer’s act constitutes an unfair labor practice under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

all circumstances to presume the existence of an employer’s intent to engage in unfair labor practice;

A physical review and determination must be made in a comprehensive manner, and the burden of proof of unfair labor practices shall be borne.

or trade union that asserts this, the agency has conducted necessary hearings, as it is against the employee or trade union

Whether the employer has an intent to engage in unfair labor practices is unclear and whether there is such intent

(2) If it is not possible to determine the amount of the

In this regard, an employer shall be subject to disciplinary action or dismissal against an employee.

Where any other unfavorable disposition is taken, etc., the legitimate grounds to conduct such disposition as a result of the examination on such disposition.

If it is found that there has been any reason, the employer's disadvantageous disposition with such disadvantage shall be the result of unfair labor practice.

It is difficult to readily conclude that the act was committed by grouting to the company (Supreme Court Decision 15 November 15, 2007).

205Du4120 decided see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du4120).

A disposition of suspension for three months against the plaintiff by the intervenor company, the intervenor company

as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s Secretariat to the Trade Union, insofar as there are reasonable grounds as set forth above.

It has actively recommended pilots to join the association as a result of the instant disciplinary action.

Disciplinary action against the plaintiff solely on the ground that the plaintiff asserts that the member of the partnership decreased, etc.

It can not be seen as an unfair labor practice.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

of this section.

Judge Lee Sung-soo

Judges Lee Byung-hee

Justices Kim Tae-hun

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.