Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Unauthorized Absence (Failure to Return to Work After Expiration of Sick Leave)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 302)
- Date2026/03/21 04:04
- Read 204
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “unauthorized absence (failure to return to work after expiration of sick leave).”
Adjudicating Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9125 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.12 · Outcome: Application dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
The employee exhausted all sick leave days under the rules of employment and then failed to comply with a total of nine requests from the employer to return to work. Although the employer requested a medical certificate from a higher-level hospital in order to consider an extension of the sick leave, the employee did not submit such certificate and did not report to work for a total of 34 days from 30 June 2025 until the convening of the disciplinary committee. This was viewed as unauthorized absence, and it was determined that grounds for disciplinary action existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee did not report to work for an extended period even after the expiration of the sick leave period, and the company imposed disciplinary dismissal. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered its decision after comprehensively considering the circumstances of the employee’s absence after the expiration of sick leave, the company’s repeated requests to return to work, the request for submission of a medical certificate from a higher-level hospital and the employee’s failure to comply, the dismissal provisions in the rules of employment, and the progress of the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where, after the sick leave period has fully expired, the employee fails to respond to the employer’s repeated requests to return to work and to submit an additional medical certificate, and does not report to work for 34 days, whether a disciplinary dismissal based on treating this as ‘unauthorized absence’ is justified.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that: after the employee had exhausted all sick leave days under the rules of employment, the employee failed to comply with nine separate requests from the employer to return to work; the employee did not submit a medical certificate from a higher-level hospital despite the employer’s request for such certificate in order to consider an exceptional extension of sick leave; and, as a result, the employee was absent from work without authorization for 34 days from 30 June 2025 until the convening of the disciplinary committee.
On this basis, the panel determined that there were grounds for disciplinary action due to the employee’s prolonged absence.
Furthermore, the rules of employment provided that the employer may dismiss an employee if the employee fails to submit an application for reinstatement within seven days after the expiration of the leave period, or if the disciplinary committee resolves to dismiss the employee. Considering this provision, the employee’s failure to submit the evidentiary materials required by the employer for an extension of sick leave, and the number of days of unauthorized absence and the circumstances thereof, the panel found that the level of trust between the employer and the employee had deteriorated to a point where restoration was difficult.
Accordingly, the panel held that the disciplinary dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of disciplinary authority to the extent that it was manifestly unreasonable by social standards, and that the severity of the disciplinary measure, being a disciplinary dismissal rather than a redundancy dismissal, fell within the scope of the employer’s discretion.
In addition, the employee clearly expressed an intention not to attend the disciplinary committee and submitted a written statement instead. There was no indication that the disciplinary committee was convened merely as a formality or that the disciplinary procedures were conducted in such a perfunctory manner as to substantially prevent the employee from exercising the right to defense. On this basis, the panel found no illegality or defect in the disciplinary procedures.
In conclusion, the panel held that, as there were no serious defects in the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, or the disciplinary procedures, the dismissal in this case did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If, after the expiration of the sick leave period, the employee still requires treatment or recuperation, the employee should promptly submit objective materials requested by the company, such as a medical certificate from a higher-level hospital, and clearly express an intention regarding return to work or extension of leave. If, after the expiration of the leave, the employee fails to report to work for an extended period and also fails to respond to the employer’s requests to return to work or to submit materials, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts are likely to regard the situation not as a mere continuation of treatment but as “unauthorized absence,” and to recognize this as a just cause for disciplinary dismissal.
Furthermore, where a disciplinary committee is scheduled, even if the employee is unavoidably unable to attend, the employee should not stop at submitting a written statement but should also prepare and submit to the company, as fully as possible, supporting materials for defense such as a medical opinion, treatment history, and specific reasons why reporting to work is difficult. It should be borne in mind that an argument that the disciplinary procedures were rushed, by itself, is unlikely to overturn the substantive circumstances of unauthorized absence and the provisions of the rules of employment.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, beginning from the time when the expiration of sick leave is approaching, it is necessary to notify the employee, in a verifiable manner such as in writing or by text message, of the possibility of returning to work, and to keep detailed records of requests to return to work and requests for submission of medical certificates. In particular, if the rules of employment clearly stipulate the deadline for submitting an application for reinstatement after expiration of leave, the measures to be taken upon non-submission, and the disciplinary standards for unauthorized absence (e.g., possibility of disciplinary dismissal after a certain number of days of unauthorized absence), this will greatly assist in proving the appropriateness of the level of discipline before the Labor Relations Commission.
In addition, when convening a disciplinary committee, the employer should faithfully implement procedures to guarantee the employee’s right to defense, such as specifically notifying the employee of the grounds for discipline, providing an opportunity to attend, and, even in the event of non-attendance, providing an opportunity to submit a written statement. As shown in this decision, where the grounds for discipline are serious and the procedures are lawful, the Labor Relations Commission will not readily find an abuse of disciplinary authority. Therefore, from the stage of human resources and labor management, it is necessary to systematically establish procedures for sick leave, leave of absence, and reinstatement in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Taken together, in order to prevent unfair dismissal disputes in cases of prolonged failure to return to work after expiration of sick leave, it is reaffirmed that employees must objectively substantiate their health condition and actively maintain communication with the company, while employers must clarify their rules of employment and disciplinary procedures so that they can objectively explain whether the relationship of trust has irreparably broken down.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Progress of Procedures
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
The employee exhausted all sick leave days under the rules of employment and then failed to comply with a total of nine requests from the employer to return to work. Although the employer requested a medical certificate from a higher-level hospital in order to extend the sick leave, the employee did not submit such certificate and did not report to work for a total of 34 days from 30 June 2025 until the convening of the disciplinary committee. This is viewed as unauthorized absence, and it is determined that grounds for disciplinary action exist.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Article 48 (Dismissal) of the company’s rules of employment clearly provides that the employer may dismiss an employee if the employee fails to submit an application for reinstatement within seven days after the expiration of the leave period or if the disciplinary committee decides on dismissal. Considering this provision, the employee’s failure to submit the evidentiary materials requested by the employer for an exceptional extension of sick leave, and the number of days of unauthorized absence, it is determined that the restoration of trust necessary to continue the employment relationship between the parties has become difficult. Therefore, the employer’s decision to dismiss does not constitute an abuse of disciplinary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The employee expressed an intention not to attend the disciplinary committee and instead submitted a written statement. There is no indication that the disciplinary procedures were conducted in a hasty manner or that the disciplinary committee was convened merely as a formality in a way that interfered with the employee’s exercise of the right to defense. Therefore, there is no basis to find any defect in the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
The employee exhausted all sick leave days under the rules of employment and then failed to comply with a total of nine requests from the employer to return to work. Although the employer requested a medical certificate from a higher-level hospital in order to extend the sick leave, the employee did not submit such certificate and did not report to work for a total of 34 days from 30 June 2025 until the convening of the disciplinary committee. This is viewed as unauthorized absence, and it is determined that grounds for disciplinary action exist.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Article 48 (Dismissal) of the company’s rules of employment clearly provides that the employer may dismiss an employee if the employee fails to submit an application for reinstatement within seven days after the expiration of the leave period or if the disciplinary committee decides on dismissal. Considering this provision, the employee’s failure to submit the evidentiary materials requested by the employer for an exceptional extension of sick leave, and the number of days of unauthorized absence, it is determined that the restoration of trust necessary to continue the employment relationship between the parties has become difficult. Therefore, the employer’s decision to dismiss does not constitute an abuse of disciplinary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The employee expressed an intention not to attend the disciplinary committee and instead submitted a written statement. There is no indication that the disciplinary procedures were conducted in a hasty manner or that the disciplinary committee was convened merely as a formality in a way that interfered with the employee’s exercise of the right to defense. Therefore, there is no basis to find any defect in the disciplinary procedures. /
[Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, unauthorized absence (failure to return to work after expiration of sick leave), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Acceptance of Resignation Letter (Voluntary Resignation or Not)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to unauthorized absence (failure to return to work after expiration of sick leave) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Unauthorized Absence (Failure to Return to Work After Expiration of Sick Leave).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “unauthorized absence (failure to return to work after expiration of sick leave).”
Adjudicating Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9125 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.12 · Outcome: Application dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
The employee exhausted all sick leave days under the rules of employment and then failed to comply with a total of nine requests from the employer to return to work. Although the employer requested a medical certificate from a higher-level hospital in order to consider an extension of the sick leave, the employee did not submit such certificate and did not report to work for a total of 34 days from 30 June 2025 until the convening of the disciplinary committee. This was viewed as unauthorized absence, and it was determined that grounds for disciplinary action existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee did not report to work for an extended period even after the expiration of the sick leave period, and the company imposed disciplinary dismissal. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered its decision after comprehensively considering the circumstances of the employee’s absence after the expiration of sick leave, the company’s repeated requests to return to work, the request for submission of a medical certificate from a higher-level hospital and the employee’s failure to comply, the dismissal provisions in the rules of employment, and the progress of the disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where, after the sick leave period has fully expired, the employee fails to respond to the employer’s repeated requests to return to work and to submit an additional medical certificate, and does not report to work for 34 days, whether a disciplinary dismissal based on treating this as ‘unauthorized absence’ is justified.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that: after the employee had exhausted all sick leave days under the rules of employment, the employee failed to comply with nine separate requests from the employer to return to work; the employee did not submit a medical certificate from a higher-level hospital despite the employer’s request for such certificate in order to consider an exceptional extension of sick leave; and, as a result, the employee was absent from work without authorization for 34 days from 30 June 2025 until the convening of the disciplinary committee.
On this basis, the panel determined that there were grounds for disciplinary action due to the employee’s prolonged absence.
Furthermore, the rules of employment provided that the employer may dismiss an employee if the employee fails to submit an application for reinstatement within seven days after the expiration of the leave period, or if the disciplinary committee resolves to dismiss the employee. Considering this provision, the employee’s failure to submit the evidentiary materials required by the employer for an extension of sick leave, and the number of days of unauthorized absence and the circumstances thereof, the panel found that the level of trust between the employer and the employee had deteriorated to a point where restoration was difficult.
Accordingly, the panel held that the disciplinary dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of disciplinary authority to the extent that it was manifestly unreasonable by social standards, and that the severity of the disciplinary measure, being a disciplinary dismissal rather than a redundancy dismissal, fell within the scope of the employer’s discretion.
In addition, the employee clearly expressed an intention not to attend the disciplinary committee and submitted a written statement instead. There was no indication that the disciplinary committee was convened merely as a formality or that the disciplinary procedures were conducted in such a perfunctory manner as to substantially prevent the employee from exercising the right to defense. On this basis, the panel found no illegality or defect in the disciplinary procedures.
In conclusion, the panel held that, as there were no serious defects in the grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, or the disciplinary procedures, the dismissal in this case did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If, after the expiration of the sick leave period, the employee still requires treatment or recuperation, the employee should promptly submit objective materials requested by the company, such as a medical certificate from a higher-level hospital, and clearly express an intention regarding return to work or extension of leave. If, after the expiration of the leave, the employee fails to report to work for an extended period and also fails to respond to the employer’s requests to return to work or to submit materials, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts are likely to regard the situation not as a mere continuation of treatment but as “unauthorized absence,” and to recognize this as a just cause for disciplinary dismissal.
Furthermore, where a disciplinary committee is scheduled, even if the employee is unavoidably unable to attend, the employee should not stop at submitting a written statement but should also prepare and submit to the company, as fully as possible, supporting materials for defense such as a medical opinion, treatment history, and specific reasons why reporting to work is difficult. It should be borne in mind that an argument that the disciplinary procedures were rushed, by itself, is unlikely to overturn the substantive circumstances of unauthorized absence and the provisions of the rules of employment.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, beginning from the time when the expiration of sick leave is approaching, it is necessary to notify the employee, in a verifiable manner such as in writing or by text message, of the possibility of returning to work, and to keep detailed records of requests to return to work and requests for submission of medical certificates. In particular, if the rules of employment clearly stipulate the deadline for submitting an application for reinstatement after expiration of leave, the measures to be taken upon non-submission, and the disciplinary standards for unauthorized absence (e.g., possibility of disciplinary dismissal after a certain number of days of unauthorized absence), this will greatly assist in proving the appropriateness of the level of discipline before the Labor Relations Commission.
In addition, when convening a disciplinary committee, the employer should faithfully implement procedures to guarantee the employee’s right to defense, such as specifically notifying the employee of the grounds for discipline, providing an opportunity to attend, and, even in the event of non-attendance, providing an opportunity to submit a written statement. As shown in this decision, where the grounds for discipline are serious and the procedures are lawful, the Labor Relations Commission will not readily find an abuse of disciplinary authority. Therefore, from the stage of human resources and labor management, it is necessary to systematically establish procedures for sick leave, leave of absence, and reinstatement in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Taken together, in order to prevent unfair dismissal disputes in cases of prolonged failure to return to work after expiration of sick leave, it is reaffirmed that employees must objectively substantiate their health condition and actively maintain communication with the company, while employers must clarify their rules of employment and disciplinary procedures so that they can objectively explain whether the relationship of trust has irreparably broken down.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Progress of Procedures
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
The employee exhausted all sick leave days under the rules of employment and then failed to comply with a total of nine requests from the employer to return to work. Although the employer requested a medical certificate from a higher-level hospital in order to extend the sick leave, the employee did not submit such certificate and did not report to work for a total of 34 days from 30 June 2025 until the convening of the disciplinary committee. This is viewed as unauthorized absence, and it is determined that grounds for disciplinary action exist.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Article 48 (Dismissal) of the company’s rules of employment clearly provides that the employer may dismiss an employee if the employee fails to submit an application for reinstatement within seven days after the expiration of the leave period or if the disciplinary committee decides on dismissal. Considering this provision, the employee’s failure to submit the evidentiary materials requested by the employer for an exceptional extension of sick leave, and the number of days of unauthorized absence, it is determined that the restoration of trust necessary to continue the employment relationship between the parties has become difficult. Therefore, the employer’s decision to dismiss does not constitute an abuse of disciplinary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The employee expressed an intention not to attend the disciplinary committee and instead submitted a written statement. There is no indication that the disciplinary procedures were conducted in a hasty manner or that the disciplinary committee was convened merely as a formality in a way that interfered with the employee’s exercise of the right to defense. Therefore, there is no basis to find any defect in the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed
The employee exhausted all sick leave days under the rules of employment and then failed to comply with a total of nine requests from the employer to return to work. Although the employer requested a medical certificate from a higher-level hospital in order to extend the sick leave, the employee did not submit such certificate and did not report to work for a total of 34 days from 30 June 2025 until the convening of the disciplinary committee. This is viewed as unauthorized absence, and it is determined that grounds for disciplinary action exist.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
Article 48 (Dismissal) of the company’s rules of employment clearly provides that the employer may dismiss an employee if the employee fails to submit an application for reinstatement within seven days after the expiration of the leave period or if the disciplinary committee decides on dismissal. Considering this provision, the employee’s failure to submit the evidentiary materials requested by the employer for an exceptional extension of sick leave, and the number of days of unauthorized absence, it is determined that the restoration of trust necessary to continue the employment relationship between the parties has become difficult. Therefore, the employer’s decision to dismiss does not constitute an abuse of disciplinary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful
The employee expressed an intention not to attend the disciplinary committee and instead submitted a written statement. There is no indication that the disciplinary procedures were conducted in a hasty manner or that the disciplinary committee was convened merely as a formality in a way that interfered with the employee’s exercise of the right to defense. Therefore, there is no basis to find any defect in the disciplinary procedures. /
[Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, unauthorized absence (failure to return to work after expiration of sick leave), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Acceptance of Resignation Letter (Voluntary Resignation or Not)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to unauthorized absence (failure to return to work after expiration of sick leave) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Unauthorized Absence (Failure to Return to Work After Expiration of Sick Leave).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
