Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Dismissal (Two Absences)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Labor Relations Commission Decision (Unfair Dismissal 106)
- Date2026/01/13 21:02
- Read 215
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “dismissal (two absences).”
Decision-making body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3149 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.18 · Case type: Dismissal (procedural)
Summary of key issue:
Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, enacted under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act 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 undelivered 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 remedy shall be dismissed. The worker in this case filed an application for remedy in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal, but the application was dismissed because the worker failed to appear at two consecutive hearing sessions. After filing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal on 4 August 2025, the worker failed to appear, without just cause, at the hearing sessions scheduled for 23 September 2025 and 18 November 2025. Pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, the Commission regarded the worker as having abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy and terminated the case without a decision on the merits.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where a worker who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal fails to appear at two consecutive hearing sessions of the Labor Relations Commission, the Commission may treat this as an abandonment of the worker’s intention to pursue the application and dismiss the application. In other words, the question is whether repeated non-appearance without just cause constitutes a “defect in the requirements for the application,” allowing the case to be concluded by a procedural dismissal without proceeding to a substantive examination on the merits.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, enacted under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, provides that where it is recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application—such as where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions or where a notice of appearance is returned undelivered due to unknown whereabouts—the application shall be dismissed; that the worker failed, without just cause, to appear at the hearing sessions held on 23 September 2025 and 18 November 2025; and that, as a result, it could only be concluded that there was no longer any practical benefit or intention to continue the remedy procedure. On this basis, the panel determined that the worker had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy. Consequently, without proceeding to a decision on the merits regarding the lawfulness of the dismissal in this case, the worker’s application for remedy was procedurally dismissed, irrespective of whether the dismissal itself was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Once a worker has filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission on grounds such as unfair dismissal or redundancy, attendance at hearing sessions is not optional but a mandatory requirement to maintain the application. If it is unavoidably difficult to attend, the worker must file a request for postponement in advance and submit evidence supporting the existence of just cause. Neglecting to do so may result in the application being dismissed before the Commission has an opportunity to examine the lawfulness of the dismissal. Workers should also carefully check all procedural notices and case progress, and, where necessary, seek professional assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to manage procedures such as attendance, submission of materials, and requests for postponement.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where a worker repeatedly fails to appear, it is advisable to keep in mind the possibility of dismissal under Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules and to clearly document the procedural history, including notices of appearance and the passage of hearing dates. However, even if the case is dismissed due to the worker’s non-appearance, the employer should separately organize and retain evidence capable of proving the substantive justification and procedural propriety of the dismissal, in preparation for potential future disputes (civil litigation, additional Labor Relations Commission cases, etc.). In cases involving measures with a high likelihood of dispute, such as redundancy dismissals or disciplinary dismissals, employers should revise internal HR regulations and secure evidence in advance, and, once a case is filed, develop a response strategy in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, enacted under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act 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 undelivered 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 remedy shall be dismissed. In this case, after filing the application for remedy on 4 August 2025, the worker failed to appear at the hearing session held on 23 September 2025 and again failed, without just cause, to appear at the rescheduled hearing session held on 18 November 2025. In light of these circumstances, it can only be concluded that the worker voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, enacted under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act 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 undelivered 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 remedy shall be dismissed. In this case, after filing the application for remedy on 4 August 2025, the worker failed to appear at the hearing session held on 23 September 2025 and again failed, without just cause, to appear at the rescheduled hearing session held on 18 November 2025. In light of these circumstances, it can only be concluded that the worker voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case type: Dismissal
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal (two absences), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Dismissal (Two Consecutive Absences)’–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to dismissal (two absences) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal (Two Absences).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “dismissal (two absences).”
Decision-making body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3149 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.18 · Case type: Dismissal (procedural)
Summary of key issue:
Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, enacted under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act 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 undelivered 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 remedy shall be dismissed. The worker in this case filed an application for remedy in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal, but the application was dismissed because the worker failed to appear at two consecutive hearing sessions. After filing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal on 4 August 2025, the worker failed to appear, without just cause, at the hearing sessions scheduled for 23 September 2025 and 18 November 2025. Pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, the Commission regarded the worker as having abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy and terminated the case without a decision on the merits.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where a worker who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal fails to appear at two consecutive hearing sessions of the Labor Relations Commission, the Commission may treat this as an abandonment of the worker’s intention to pursue the application and dismiss the application. In other words, the question is whether repeated non-appearance without just cause constitutes a “defect in the requirements for the application,” allowing the case to be concluded by a procedural dismissal without proceeding to a substantive examination on the merits.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, enacted under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, provides that where it is recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application—such as where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions or where a notice of appearance is returned undelivered due to unknown whereabouts—the application shall be dismissed; that the worker failed, without just cause, to appear at the hearing sessions held on 23 September 2025 and 18 November 2025; and that, as a result, it could only be concluded that there was no longer any practical benefit or intention to continue the remedy procedure. On this basis, the panel determined that the worker had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy. Consequently, without proceeding to a decision on the merits regarding the lawfulness of the dismissal in this case, the worker’s application for remedy was procedurally dismissed, irrespective of whether the dismissal itself was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Once a worker has filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission on grounds such as unfair dismissal or redundancy, attendance at hearing sessions is not optional but a mandatory requirement to maintain the application. If it is unavoidably difficult to attend, the worker must file a request for postponement in advance and submit evidence supporting the existence of just cause. Neglecting to do so may result in the application being dismissed before the Commission has an opportunity to examine the lawfulness of the dismissal. Workers should also carefully check all procedural notices and case progress, and, where necessary, seek professional assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to manage procedures such as attendance, submission of materials, and requests for postponement.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where a worker repeatedly fails to appear, it is advisable to keep in mind the possibility of dismissal under Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules and to clearly document the procedural history, including notices of appearance and the passage of hearing dates. However, even if the case is dismissed due to the worker’s non-appearance, the employer should separately organize and retain evidence capable of proving the substantive justification and procedural propriety of the dismissal, in preparation for potential future disputes (civil litigation, additional Labor Relations Commission cases, etc.). In cases involving measures with a high likelihood of dispute, such as redundancy dismissals or disciplinary dismissals, employers should revise internal HR regulations and secure evidence in advance, and, once a case is filed, develop a response strategy in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, enacted under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act 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 undelivered 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 remedy shall be dismissed. In this case, after filing the application for remedy on 4 August 2025, the worker failed to appear at the hearing session held on 23 September 2025 and again failed, without just cause, to appear at the rescheduled hearing session held on 18 November 2025. In light of these circumstances, it can only be concluded that the worker voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, enacted under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act 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 undelivered 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 remedy shall be dismissed. In this case, after filing the application for remedy on 4 August 2025, the worker failed to appear at the hearing session held on 23 September 2025 and again failed, without just cause, to appear at the rescheduled hearing session held on 18 November 2025. In light of these circumstances, it can only be concluded that the worker voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case type: Dismissal
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal (two absences), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Dismissal (Two Consecutive Absences)’–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to dismissal (two absences) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal (Two Absences).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
