Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Procedural Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ in Unfair Dismissal Relief Cases (Unfair Dismissal 487)
- Date2026/05/27 04:12
- Read 64
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “procedural dismissal (non-appearance at hearing).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Unfair3542 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.19 · Case Type: Dismissal
Key Issue Summary: The employee in 2026.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking relief from what he claimed was an unfair dismissal by the employer. However, he repeatedly failed to appear at the hearings, and the case was ultimately dismissed. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission held the first hearing on 20 January 2026 and, in order to give the employee another opportunity to make statements, convened a second hearing on 19 March 2026. As the employee failed to appear at both hearings, the Commission dismissed the application for relief.
Ⅱ. Issue Summary
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee who has filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal fails to appear at two consecutive hearings of the Labor Relations Commission, may the Commission treat this as an abandonment of the application and dismiss the case?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee failed to appear at the first hearing, that a second hearing was separately scheduled to sufficiently guarantee the employee an opportunity to make statements but he again failed to appear, and that Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules provides for dismissal “where it is recognized that the intention to pursue the application for relief has been abandoned.”
In light of the above, the panel held that, before determining whether the dismissal in question was unfair, it should be regarded that the employee no longer had the intention to proceed with the relief procedure he had initiated.
Accordingly, the Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employee’s application for relief from unfair dismissal itself.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that merely filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission to contest an unfair dismissal does not automatically ensure that their rights are protected. Upon receiving notice of a hearing date, they should not fail to appear without just cause. If there are unavoidable circumstances, they should take procedural measures in advance, such as applying for a postponement.
In view of the possibility of a protracted dispute, it is also necessary to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and systematically prepare for the hearing, organize evidence, and establish an appearance strategy.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even if an employee files an application for relief, the case may be dismissed if the employee does not substantively participate in the hearing process. Employers should therefore closely monitor procedural developments, including receipt of notices and the employee’s attendance.
However, a procedural dismissal does not mean that the legitimacy of the dismissal is automatically recognized. Employers should separately review whether the grounds and procedures for the dismissal at the time complied with the Labor Standards Act and relevant case law.
To prevent similar disputes from recurring, employers should clearly set out disciplinary and dismissal procedures in the rules of employment and provide training to HR personnel to minimize allegations of unfair dismissal.
[Concluding Implications]
This decision illustrates that, even before reaching a substantive determination on whether a dismissal is unfair, an employee may lose the very benefit of relief if he or she does not faithfully follow the procedures of the Labor Relations Commission. In disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal, participation in the Commission’s procedures and management of hearing dates are just as crucial as the substantive assessment of the legitimacy of the dismissal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee did not appear at the hearing held on 20 January 2026 and also failed to appear at the second hearing held on 19 March 2026, which had been convened to give him an opportunity to make statements. As the employee failed to appear at two hearings in this way, the Commission regarded this as an abandonment of the intention to pursue the application for relief and dismissed the case pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee did not appear at the hearing held on 20 January 2026 and also failed to appear at the second hearing held on 19 March 2026, which had been convened to give him an opportunity to make statements. As the employee failed to appear at two hearings in this way, the Commission regarded this as an abandonment of the intention to pursue the application for relief and dismissed the case pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Decision Date: - Case Type: Dismissal
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to “Refusal of Regular Employment (Probation Evaluation Below 60 Points)”’
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Demand for Chairman’s Resignation · Submission of Petition)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, procedural dismissal (non-appearance at hearing), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Demand for Chairman’s Resignation · Submission of Petition)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to procedural dismissal (non-appearance at hearing) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Procedural Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “procedural dismissal (non-appearance at hearing).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Unfair3542 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.19 · Case Type: Dismissal
Key Issue Summary: The employee in 2026.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking relief from what he claimed was an unfair dismissal by the employer. However, he repeatedly failed to appear at the hearings, and the case was ultimately dismissed. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission held the first hearing on 20 January 2026 and, in order to give the employee another opportunity to make statements, convened a second hearing on 19 March 2026. As the employee failed to appear at both hearings, the Commission dismissed the application for relief.
Ⅱ. Issue Summary
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee who has filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal fails to appear at two consecutive hearings of the Labor Relations Commission, may the Commission treat this as an abandonment of the application and dismiss the case?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee failed to appear at the first hearing, that a second hearing was separately scheduled to sufficiently guarantee the employee an opportunity to make statements but he again failed to appear, and that Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules provides for dismissal “where it is recognized that the intention to pursue the application for relief has been abandoned.”
In light of the above, the panel held that, before determining whether the dismissal in question was unfair, it should be regarded that the employee no longer had the intention to proceed with the relief procedure he had initiated.
Accordingly, the Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employee’s application for relief from unfair dismissal itself.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that merely filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission to contest an unfair dismissal does not automatically ensure that their rights are protected. Upon receiving notice of a hearing date, they should not fail to appear without just cause. If there are unavoidable circumstances, they should take procedural measures in advance, such as applying for a postponement.
In view of the possibility of a protracted dispute, it is also necessary to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and systematically prepare for the hearing, organize evidence, and establish an appearance strategy.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even if an employee files an application for relief, the case may be dismissed if the employee does not substantively participate in the hearing process. Employers should therefore closely monitor procedural developments, including receipt of notices and the employee’s attendance.
However, a procedural dismissal does not mean that the legitimacy of the dismissal is automatically recognized. Employers should separately review whether the grounds and procedures for the dismissal at the time complied with the Labor Standards Act and relevant case law.
To prevent similar disputes from recurring, employers should clearly set out disciplinary and dismissal procedures in the rules of employment and provide training to HR personnel to minimize allegations of unfair dismissal.
[Concluding Implications]
This decision illustrates that, even before reaching a substantive determination on whether a dismissal is unfair, an employee may lose the very benefit of relief if he or she does not faithfully follow the procedures of the Labor Relations Commission. In disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal, participation in the Commission’s procedures and management of hearing dates are just as crucial as the substantive assessment of the legitimacy of the dismissal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee did not appear at the hearing held on 20 January 2026 and also failed to appear at the second hearing held on 19 March 2026, which had been convened to give him an opportunity to make statements. As the employee failed to appear at two hearings in this way, the Commission regarded this as an abandonment of the intention to pursue the application for relief and dismissed the case pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee did not appear at the hearing held on 20 January 2026 and also failed to appear at the second hearing held on 19 March 2026, which had been convened to give him an opportunity to make statements. As the employee failed to appear at two hearings in this way, the Commission regarded this as an abandonment of the intention to pursue the application for relief and dismissed the case pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Decision Date: - Case Type: Dismissal
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to “Refusal of Regular Employment (Probation Evaluation Below 60 Points)”’
- ‘Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Demand for Chairman’s Resignation · Submission of Petition)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, procedural dismissal (non-appearance at hearing), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Demand for Chairman’s Resignation · Submission of Petition)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to procedural dismissal (non-appearance at hearing) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Procedural Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
