1. 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.

The plaintiff is a corporation that is established on January 5, 200 and runs the business of manufacturing and selling stickers and labels using 40 full-time workers.

The intervenors are the employees who were employed in the packing book for the plaintiffs from September 1, 2009 to January 1, 2016.

On June 4, 2013, the intervenors joined the W trade union (hereinafter “instant trade union”).

The membership dates of the intervenors and the status of the trade union in this case shall be as follows:

The Intervenor C, F, and G retired on December 31, 2014, but re-employmented on January 1, 2016, and the Intervenor K, and P were employed as “production book”, and “ex officio,” but were converted to the packing book with the consent of the said Intervenor from September 3, 2013 to November 28, 2014.

B CD EF HH H K NA PP PPR S and the instant trade union filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on April 27, 2018, stating that “The Plaintiff, on January 29, 2018, transferred the intervenors from the packaging to the business department, constitutes an unfair conversion placement, and constitutes unfair labor practices such as disadvantageous treatment, control, and intervention. The Plaintiff’s act of regularly monitoring and inspecting the intervenors from the mobile phone from February 2, 2018 to the mobile phone, using video devices such as 2, brates, CCTV, and CCTV, and the Plaintiff’s continued disciplinary action against the Intervenor constitutes unfair labor practices such as disadvantageous treatment, control, and intervention.”

The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, on August 27, 2018, converted and placed the intervenors from the packaging book on January 29, 2018 to the business department, and the conversion and placement are unreasonable. However, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff had an intent to engage in unfair labor practice in relation to the conversion and placement, and it cannot be deemed that the conversion and placement did not constitute unfair labor practice in favor of the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s representative used video equipment and the Intervenor’s use of video equipment.