Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 65)
- Date2026/01/10 23:12
- Read 198
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision related to “dismissal (non-appearance at hearing)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissal
- Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3552 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2025.11.21
- Summary of outcome: (i) Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act and Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules provide that a case shall be dismissed where it is recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the relief application, such as by failing to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions; (ii) the employee in this case …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. However, the employee repeatedly failed to appear at the hearings, and the application was ultimately dismissed. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed whether to proceed with the case, based on the legal principles organized by Labor Law Firm Law&, in circumstances where the hearing notices were returned twice and the employee did not respond at all to telephone calls or text messages.
The Commission convened hearings on 6 November 2025 and 21 November 2025, but the employee failed to appear on both dates. As a result, the Commission was unable to proceed to the merits and determine the lawfulness of the dismissal or redundancy, and the case was closed.
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 hearings on two or more occasions and does not respond to any contact, may the Commission regard this as abandonment of the intention to pursue the relief application and ‘dismiss’ the case?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, enacted pursuant to the rule-making authority granted under Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, provides that a case shall be dismissed where the applicant fails to appear on two or more occasions or where the hearing notices are returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or location. Taking into account that the employee in fact failed to appear at two consecutive hearings, that the hearing notices sent to the employee were returned twice, and that the employee did not respond at all despite multiple telephone calls and text messages,
the Commission determined that the employee no longer had any intention to proceed with the relief procedure.
The Commission therefore concluded that, before examining the lawfulness of the dismissal itself, the employee’s abandonment of the relief application led to the dismissal of the unfair dismissal relief application.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that if, after filing an application for relief from unfair dismissal, they fail to appear at the scheduled hearings on two or more occasions or continuously fail to respond to the Commission’s mail, telephone calls, or text messages, the application may be dismissed on the ground that they are deemed to have abandoned their intention to pursue it. If there is a legitimate reason making attendance difficult, it is essential to notify the Commission in advance, and any change of address must be promptly reported so that hearing notices are not returned.
Even where the dismissal itself appears clearly unfair, the case may be closed without any determination on the merits if the employee does not cooperate with the procedure. Attendance at hearings and responding to communications are therefore the most basic prerequisites for obtaining relief.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where the employee repeatedly fails to appear at the hearings, the Labor Relations Commission may dismiss the case pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Rules. However, until such a decision is made, it is advisable to submit a written reply and prepare evidence in good faith. Even if the case is dismissed because the employee neglects the procedure, other legal disputes (such as civil lawsuits) concerning the same matter may later be initiated. Accordingly, employers should systematically organize materials capable of proving the grounds and procedures for the dismissal or redundancy.
In addition, if the employer fails to comply with the Commission’s investigation or requests for submission of materials on two or more occasions, there may be exposure to criminal liability. Therefore, regardless of whether the employee appears, the company should actively cooperate with the Labor Relations Commission’s procedures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(i) Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act and Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules provide that a case shall be dismissed where it is recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the relief application, such as by failing to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions; (ii) the employee failed to appear at the hearings of this Commission held on 6 November 2025 and 21 November 2025; (iii) the hearing notices sent by this Commission to the employee were returned twice, and the employee did not respond to multiple telephone calls and text messages. In light of all these circumstances, it is deemed that the employee voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the relief application.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(i) Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act and Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules provide that a case shall be dismissed where it is recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the relief application, such as by failing to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions; (ii) the employee failed to appear at the hearings of this Commission held on 6 November 2025 and 21 November 2025; (iii) the hearing notices sent by this Commission to the employee were returned twice, and the employee did not respond to multiple telephone calls and text messages. In light of all these circumstances, it is deemed that the employee voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the relief application. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Refusal to Comply with Reinstatement Order)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case number: Dismissal
- “‘Misunderstanding of Termination by Agreement (Agreement with Employee Representative)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case number: Fully Upheld
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal (non-appearance at hearing), 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, “‘Termination by Agreement on Resignation (No Verbal Dismissal Notice)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to dismissal (non-appearance at hearing) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision related to “dismissal (non-appearance at hearing)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissal
- Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3552 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2025.11.21
- Summary of outcome: (i) Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act and Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules provide that a case shall be dismissed where it is recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the relief application, such as by failing to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions; (ii) the employee in this case …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. However, the employee repeatedly failed to appear at the hearings, and the application was ultimately dismissed. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed whether to proceed with the case, based on the legal principles organized by Labor Law Firm Law&, in circumstances where the hearing notices were returned twice and the employee did not respond at all to telephone calls or text messages.
The Commission convened hearings on 6 November 2025 and 21 November 2025, but the employee failed to appear on both dates. As a result, the Commission was unable to proceed to the merits and determine the lawfulness of the dismissal or redundancy, and the case was closed.
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 hearings on two or more occasions and does not respond to any contact, may the Commission regard this as abandonment of the intention to pursue the relief application and ‘dismiss’ the case?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, enacted pursuant to the rule-making authority granted under Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, provides that a case shall be dismissed where the applicant fails to appear on two or more occasions or where the hearing notices are returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or location. Taking into account that the employee in fact failed to appear at two consecutive hearings, that the hearing notices sent to the employee were returned twice, and that the employee did not respond at all despite multiple telephone calls and text messages,
the Commission determined that the employee no longer had any intention to proceed with the relief procedure.
The Commission therefore concluded that, before examining the lawfulness of the dismissal itself, the employee’s abandonment of the relief application led to the dismissal of the unfair dismissal relief application.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that if, after filing an application for relief from unfair dismissal, they fail to appear at the scheduled hearings on two or more occasions or continuously fail to respond to the Commission’s mail, telephone calls, or text messages, the application may be dismissed on the ground that they are deemed to have abandoned their intention to pursue it. If there is a legitimate reason making attendance difficult, it is essential to notify the Commission in advance, and any change of address must be promptly reported so that hearing notices are not returned.
Even where the dismissal itself appears clearly unfair, the case may be closed without any determination on the merits if the employee does not cooperate with the procedure. Attendance at hearings and responding to communications are therefore the most basic prerequisites for obtaining relief.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where the employee repeatedly fails to appear at the hearings, the Labor Relations Commission may dismiss the case pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Rules. However, until such a decision is made, it is advisable to submit a written reply and prepare evidence in good faith. Even if the case is dismissed because the employee neglects the procedure, other legal disputes (such as civil lawsuits) concerning the same matter may later be initiated. Accordingly, employers should systematically organize materials capable of proving the grounds and procedures for the dismissal or redundancy.
In addition, if the employer fails to comply with the Commission’s investigation or requests for submission of materials on two or more occasions, there may be exposure to criminal liability. Therefore, regardless of whether the employee appears, the company should actively cooperate with the Labor Relations Commission’s procedures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(i) Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act and Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules provide that a case shall be dismissed where it is recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the relief application, such as by failing to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions; (ii) the employee failed to appear at the hearings of this Commission held on 6 November 2025 and 21 November 2025; (iii) the hearing notices sent by this Commission to the employee were returned twice, and the employee did not respond to multiple telephone calls and text messages. In light of all these circumstances, it is deemed that the employee voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the relief application.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(i) Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act and Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules provide that a case shall be dismissed where it is recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the relief application, such as by failing to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions; (ii) the employee failed to appear at the hearings of this Commission held on 6 November 2025 and 21 November 2025; (iii) the hearing notices sent by this Commission to the employee were returned twice, and the employee did not respond to multiple telephone calls and text messages. In light of all these circumstances, it is deemed that the employee voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the relief application. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Refusal to Comply with Reinstatement Order)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case number: Dismissal
- “‘Misunderstanding of Termination by Agreement (Agreement with Employee Representative)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case number: Fully Upheld
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal (non-appearance at hearing), 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, “‘Termination by Agreement on Resignation (No Verbal Dismissal Notice)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to dismissal (non-appearance at hearing) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
