■ Solution date: June 2015 ■ Job title: Accounting
■ Length of service: 9 months ■ Women
A company that manages taverns. Union members were notified of disciplinary dismissal for reasons such as violating business rules and directives and disrupting order. There was no such fact, and the president’s wife, the vice president, only provided guidance on answering the phone. The union members and the vice president were never acquainted, and all communications and guidance from the vice president to the union members were done by phone. The vice-president’s “guidance” was not based on facts, so union members were rebutting each time, and disciplinary dismissal notices were made. The employer is presumed to have decided to dismiss the discipline without acknowledging himself / herself based on reports from union colleagues.
When an application was made for collective bargaining to withdraw the disciplinary dismissal, an attorney attorney attended the collective bargaining. The attorney at law only communicated the employer’s case and did not lead to constructive consultation. Therefore, when the solution was presented from the union and waited for the user’s response, a second disciplinary dismissal notice (a different day from the first dismissal date) was made instead of the answer with a new reason. It was. Judging by voluntary resolution, it applied to the Fukuoka Labor Commission for mediation.
The employers agreed to withdraw the disciplinary dismissal and leave the company, and pay the settlement fee.