Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Dismissal (Two Consecutive Non‑Appearances)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 104)
- Date2026/01/13 20:42
- Read 224
[Case Information]
Result: Procedural dismissal / Type: Dismissal (two consecutive non‑appearances)
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3149 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2025.11.18 · Case type: Dismissal
Pursuant to the delegation under Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which was enacted to ensure the prompt and fair exercise of the Commission’s powers and duties, provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, or where a notice of appearance is returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” the application for relief shall be dismissed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking relief from alleged unfair dismissal. However, the application was dismissed because the employee failed to appear at the hearing on two consecutive occasions. After filing the unfair dismissal relief application on 4 August 2025, the employee was found to have failed to appear without just cause at both the hearing scheduled for 23 September 2025 and the rescheduled hearing on 18 November 2025.
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is:
“Where an employee who has filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal fails to appear at the Labor Relations Commission hearing on two consecutive occasions, may the Commission deem that the employee has abandoned the intention to pursue the application and dismiss the application for relief pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, enacted pursuant to the delegation under Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, provides that an application shall be dismissed where it is recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application, such as by failing to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions.
Considering that the employee did not appear at the first hearing after filing the unfair dismissal relief application, and again failed to appear at the rescheduled second hearing without just cause, the panel held that the employee must be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the unfair dismissal relief application.
Accordingly, the panel did not proceed to the merits of whether the dismissal in this case was unfair, and instead dismissed the unfair dismissal relief application itself.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Once an employee has filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, attendance at the hearing is not optional; it is an essential requirement to maintain the relief procedure. If the employee fails to appear on two or more occasions without just cause, the application will be dismissed regardless of whether the dismissal was substantively justified, and the employee will lose the opportunity to obtain a decision on the merits from the Commission.
If unavoidable circumstances make it difficult to attend a scheduled hearing, the employee must file a request for postponement in advance and submit supporting documentation. It is also very important in unfair dismissal disputes to appoint a professional representative, such as a certified labor attorney, to systematically manage hearing dates and the submission of written arguments.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, once an application for relief from unfair dismissal has been filed, it is necessary to carefully monitor whether the employee repeatedly fails to appear and whether the Labor Relations Commission is considering dismissal of the application pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Rules. Where it is clear that the employee has failed to appear on two or more occasions, the company should observe whether the case will be dismissed on procedural grounds before engaging in a full merits defense, while at the same time preparing and organizing evidence in anticipation of a possible merits hearing.
However, employees may assert that they were unable to attend for reasons not attributable to them. Therefore, the company should retain records relating to procedure—such as proof of service of notices and the progress of hearing dates—so that it can later demonstrate that the proceedings were conducted fairly. Even if the Labor Relations Commission terminates the case by dismissal, the dispute may continue in other forums, such as civil litigation. Employers should therefore continuously maintain and organize personnel and disciplinary documents and evidence supporting the grounds for dismissal.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Pursuant to the delegation under Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which was enacted to ensure the prompt and fair exercise of the Commission’s powers and duties, provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, or where a notice of appearance is returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” the application for relief shall be dismissed.
In this case, after the employee filed the application for relief on 4 August 2025, the employee failed to appear at the hearing held on 23 September 2025, and again failed to appear without just cause at the rescheduled hearing held on 18 November 2025. In light of these facts, the employee must be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for relief.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Pursuant to the delegation under Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which was enacted to ensure the prompt and fair exercise of the Commission’s powers and duties, provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, or where a notice of appearance is returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” the application for relief shall be dismissed.
In this case, after the employee filed the application for relief on 4 August 2025, the employee failed to appear at the hearing held on 23 September 2025, and again failed to appear without just cause at the rescheduled hearing held on 18 November 2025. In light of these facts, the employee must be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for relief. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case type: Dismissal
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal (two consecutive non‑appearances), others, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong‑dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Agreement to Resign (Probationary Employee)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to dismissal (two consecutive non‑appearances) can be found in the “Dismissal (Two Consecutive Non‑Appearances) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Result: Procedural dismissal / Type: Dismissal (two consecutive non‑appearances)
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3149 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2025.11.18 · Case type: Dismissal
Pursuant to the delegation under Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which was enacted to ensure the prompt and fair exercise of the Commission’s powers and duties, provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, or where a notice of appearance is returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” the application for relief shall be dismissed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking relief from alleged unfair dismissal. However, the application was dismissed because the employee failed to appear at the hearing on two consecutive occasions. After filing the unfair dismissal relief application on 4 August 2025, the employee was found to have failed to appear without just cause at both the hearing scheduled for 23 September 2025 and the rescheduled hearing on 18 November 2025.
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is:
“Where an employee who has filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal fails to appear at the Labor Relations Commission hearing on two consecutive occasions, may the Commission deem that the employee has abandoned the intention to pursue the application and dismiss the application for relief pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, enacted pursuant to the delegation under Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, provides that an application shall be dismissed where it is recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application, such as by failing to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions.
Considering that the employee did not appear at the first hearing after filing the unfair dismissal relief application, and again failed to appear at the rescheduled second hearing without just cause, the panel held that the employee must be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the unfair dismissal relief application.
Accordingly, the panel did not proceed to the merits of whether the dismissal in this case was unfair, and instead dismissed the unfair dismissal relief application itself.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Once an employee has filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, attendance at the hearing is not optional; it is an essential requirement to maintain the relief procedure. If the employee fails to appear on two or more occasions without just cause, the application will be dismissed regardless of whether the dismissal was substantively justified, and the employee will lose the opportunity to obtain a decision on the merits from the Commission.
If unavoidable circumstances make it difficult to attend a scheduled hearing, the employee must file a request for postponement in advance and submit supporting documentation. It is also very important in unfair dismissal disputes to appoint a professional representative, such as a certified labor attorney, to systematically manage hearing dates and the submission of written arguments.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, once an application for relief from unfair dismissal has been filed, it is necessary to carefully monitor whether the employee repeatedly fails to appear and whether the Labor Relations Commission is considering dismissal of the application pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Rules. Where it is clear that the employee has failed to appear on two or more occasions, the company should observe whether the case will be dismissed on procedural grounds before engaging in a full merits defense, while at the same time preparing and organizing evidence in anticipation of a possible merits hearing.
However, employees may assert that they were unable to attend for reasons not attributable to them. Therefore, the company should retain records relating to procedure—such as proof of service of notices and the progress of hearing dates—so that it can later demonstrate that the proceedings were conducted fairly. Even if the Labor Relations Commission terminates the case by dismissal, the dispute may continue in other forums, such as civil litigation. Employers should therefore continuously maintain and organize personnel and disciplinary documents and evidence supporting the grounds for dismissal.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Pursuant to the delegation under Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which was enacted to ensure the prompt and fair exercise of the Commission’s powers and duties, provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, or where a notice of appearance is returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” the application for relief shall be dismissed.
In this case, after the employee filed the application for relief on 4 August 2025, the employee failed to appear at the hearing held on 23 September 2025, and again failed to appear without just cause at the rescheduled hearing held on 18 November 2025. In light of these facts, the employee must be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for relief.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Pursuant to the delegation under Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which was enacted to ensure the prompt and fair exercise of the Commission’s powers and duties, provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, or where a notice of appearance is returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” the application for relief shall be dismissed.
In this case, after the employee filed the application for relief on 4 August 2025, the employee failed to appear at the hearing held on 23 September 2025, and again failed to appear without just cause at the rescheduled hearing held on 18 November 2025. In light of these facts, the employee must be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for relief. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case type: Dismissal
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal (two consecutive non‑appearances), others, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong‑dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Agreement to Resign (Probationary Employee)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to dismissal (two consecutive non‑appearances) can be found in the “Dismissal (Two Consecutive Non‑Appearances) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
