logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.07.02 2014구합74138
차별시정재심판정취소
Text

1. On October 21, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission applied for re-adjudication of discrimination 9 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant for reexamination.

Reasons

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company running casino business, tourist hotel business, skiing ground business, golf course business, etc.

The Intervenor (when indicating the Intervenor individually, to indicate in the same manner as the Intervenor 1’s intervenor and the Intervenor 2’s Intervenor 2) entered into a labor contract with the Plaintiff on August 17, 2012, where the term of the contract was from August 20, 2012 to February 19, 2013, and the term of the contract was extended from February 20, 2013 to August 19, 2013, from February 20, 2013 to August 19, 2013; and the term of the contract from August 20, 2013 to August 20, 2013 to November 19, 2013, respectively.

The Intervenor 1 through 12 did not have a career in another casino (hereinafter referred to as “outside work experience”) before joining the Plaintiff Company, and the Intervenor 13 through 16 had an external work experience for one year, and the Intervenor 17 had an external work experience for two years.

B. On March 13, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application for correction on the ground that the Intervenor was given discriminatory treatment from the Plaintiff during his/her New Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’

On July 9, 2014, the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized the Plaintiff as the discriminatory treatment under Article 8(1) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers without paying the Intervenor a full-time leave, and ordered the Plaintiff to pay the amount equivalent to the wages calculated by deeming the Plaintiff a full-time leave, which was not paid during the service period of the Intervenor, as a paid leave.

C. On August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission on August 22, 2014.

arrow