In connection with “extinction of remedial interest (factory closure),” an unfair dismissal relief application case was conducted, in which the employer prevailed. I would like to share this decision and its legal implications with you.

In this case, the key issue in the Labor Relations Commission proceedings was whether remedial interest continued to exist in light of the factory closure. As it clearly illustrates a recurring issue in unfair dismissal and redundancy (collective dismissal) cases, Labor Law Firm Law& will整理 this case from a practical perspective.

1. Legal Implications

The issue in this case was: “In a situation where the ○○ manufacturing plant has been closed and the workplace to which the employees could return has disappeared, does remedial interest necessary for an unfair dismissal and unfair labor practice relief application still exist?”

The decision panel in this case noted that the company had officially reported the closure of the ○○ manufacturing plant, that as a result the workplace to which the employees could return had in fact disappeared, and that there were no indications that the employer had established a separate company engaging in the same or similar business or was continuing the business in a similar manner.

Despite the employees’ argument that the factory closure was merely formal and that the legitimacy of the dismissal and the existence of unfair labor practices should be assessed separately, and despite the union’s argument that a determination on unfair labor practices was necessary to guarantee the three basic labor rights of its members,

the panel held that the dismissal at issue was improper on the ground that, due to the closure of the business establishment, it had become impossible in the Labor Relations Commission procedure to realize an order for reinstatement, and therefore “remedial interest” did not exist.

In line with the purport of Article 60(1)6 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, this case reconfirmed that, where a business or business establishment has in fact disappeared and it is impossible to enforce an order for reinstatement to the original position, the relief application may be dismissed without reaching the merits of whether unfair dismissal or unfair labor practices occurred. However, issues such as sham closures, partial closures with possible personnel interchangeability with other businesses, and whether an order to pay an amount equivalent to wages can be recognized as having independent remedial interest still require separate legal analysis. Accordingly, in situations involving workforce reductions premised on redundancy or closure, it is advisable at an early stage to closely analyze both the “substance of the closure” and the “structure of remedial interest” before formulating a response strategy.

2. Matters Decided

A. Whether remedial interest exists

1) (Unfair dismissal relief application)

The company reported the closure of the ○○ manufacturing plant in January 2025, and the workplace to which the employees could return has disappeared. There is also no evidence that the employer has established a separate company engaging in the same business as before or is continuing the business in a similar manner. Therefore, the business has in fact been closed, and even if a relief order for reinstatement were issued, its realization would be impossible, so remedial interest does not exist. Accordingly, since remedial interest does not exist, there is no need to further examine whether the dismissal in this case was justified.

2) (Unfair labor practice relief application)

Since there can no longer be said to be any union members belonging to the labor union at the company, and given that the purpose of the unfair labor practice relief application filed by the union against the employer is to ensure the smooth exercise of the three basic labor rights by the members of the union’s local chapter, the unfair labor practice relief application falls under a case “where the content of the relief sought is clearly impossible to realize under law or in fact, or where it is clear that there is no remedial interest.” Therefore, remedial interest does not exist, and there is no need to further examine whether unfair labor practices occurred.

3. Gist of the Decision

A. Whether remedial interest exists

1) (Unfair dismissal relief application)

The company reported the closure of the ○○ manufacturing plant in January 2025, and the workplace to which the employees could return has disappeared. There is also no evidence that the employer has established a separate company engaging in the same business as before or is continuing the business in a similar manner. Therefore, the business has in fact been closed, and even if a relief order for reinstatement were issued, its realization would be impossible, so remedial interest does not exist. Accordingly, since remedial interest does not exist, there is no need to further examine whether the dismissal in this case was justified.

2) (Unfair labor practice relief application)

Since there can no longer be said to be any union members belonging to the labor union at the company, and given that the purpose of the unfair labor practice relief application filed by the union against the employer is to ensure the smooth exercise of the three basic labor rights by the members of the union’s local chapter, the unfair labor practice relief application falls under a case “where the content of the relief sought is clearly impossible to realize under law or in fact, or where it is clear that there is no remedial interest.” Therefore, remedial interest does not exist, and there is no need to further examine whether unfair labor practices occurred. /