1. On September 30, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission attached No. 2015 to the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (merged).

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that ordinarily employs approximately five hundred workers and operates passenger transport business using buses.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was employed by the Plaintiff on November 1, 2006 and served as an urban bus driver. From September 1, 2014, the Defendant driven a bus No. 1111 that was operated from the Gangnam-gu Seoul Northerndong to the Seongbuk-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul.

B. On December 19, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors that he/she was subject to a disciplinary measure against an urgent suspension from office for two days from December 26, 2014 to December 27, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant suspension from office.” The grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor stated in the instant notice were as follows: (a) from November 1, 2014 to November 1, 2014, “the Intervenor had been engaged in an intentional delay in operation, such as driving slowly and causing a civil petition on the ground of safety operation, regardless of the flow of the road,” and the grounds for disciplinary action was Article 19(6), 73(5) and (6), 74(10), (2), and (36) of the Rules of Employment, and Article 9 of the collective agreement.

C. On March 18, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that the instant suspension from office constituted suspension from office and unfair labor practices without justifiable grounds and filed an application for remedy for unfair labor practices with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission as Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission No. 2015, 770/Mano18 (merged).

The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission made it clear that the delay operation of an intervenor that occurred during November 2014 was based on the intervenor's intent, and thus, it is difficult to see that the ground for disciplinary action is recognized, and that the two-day suspension suspension disposition is excessive in light of the case.

“The Intervenor rendered a decision to dismiss all the Intervenor’s petition for remedy on the ground of the reasons, etc. D. The Intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on June 24, 2015 as Annex 2015 and Annex 615/No114 (merged) with respect to the said first instance trial tribunal. The National Labor Relations Commission on September 30, 2015 recognized the Intervenor’s delayed operation of buses on November 2014, but its delay in operation.