1. Cases of application for reexamination of unfair dismissal and unfair suspension from office filed by the National Labor Relations Commission on November 15, 2018.

Details of the Review Decision

A. The Plaintiff was established on June 27, 2002 and employs approximately 230 full-time workers and operates passenger transport business.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was employed on March 30, 2005 by the Intervenor B, and the Intervenor C was employed on November 1, 2005 by the Plaintiff Company as a bus engineer.

B. The Plaintiff Company is operating five city buses, one regular seat bus, one direct seat bus.

Plaintiff

On May 2, 2017, the company implemented an adjustment of the allocation number D of route numbers among city bus routes.

(hereinafter “instant allocation”). The scheduled bus for operation of the said route was 32 units. On May 2, 2017, eight workers, including the intervenors, went home and operated 240,000 units, without operating the bus.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant workers” and “non-performance of the instant labor provision”).

Plaintiff

On May 13, 2017, the company held the first disciplinary committee for eight workers of this case who participated in the non-performance of the instant labor provision.

(hereinafter “The First Disciplinary Committee”). The first Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter “the Second Disciplinary Committee”) decided that a disciplinary action shall be determined based on the results of an investigation after receiving a written complaint from the relevant agency on the grounds that the person subject to disciplinary action does not recognize the suspicion of disciplinary action (the person subject to disciplinary action) and notified him/her of the same date by May 15, 2017. D. The Plaintiff Company held the Second Disciplinary Committee on March 29, 2018 (hereinafter “the Second Disciplinary Committee”). The second Disciplinary Committee decided that a disciplinary action against the Intervenor B was dismissed for the following reasons, and that a disciplinary action against the Intervenor C was suspended for 90 days.

Plaintiff

On March 30, 2018, the Company notified the Intervenor of the result of the relevant disciplinary action.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal” and “Suspension from Office”, together with the “instant disciplinary action”). Intervenor B’s dismissal from office

(a) Article 13(13) of the Rules of Employment: To object to a legitimate order of duty issued by the commercial company;