Corporate trends / Performance record
Procedural Defects (Site Manager Redundancy Dismissal) – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 115)
- Date2026/01/16 04:05
- Read 249
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “procedural defects (site manager redundancy dismissal).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3880 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.17 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the company carried out a redundancy dismissal of a site manager on the ground that its financial condition had deteriorated to the point that continued operation of the business was impossible. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The employer argued, on the one hand, that this was a managerial (economic) dismissal, and on the other hand, that there were also grounds for disciplinary dismissal based on alleged embezzlement of company funds and negligent site management. However, the employer failed to provide supporting materials or a written notice specifying the concrete grounds for dismissal, which became the central issue in the case.
In this unfair dismissal remedy case, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined both the requirements for managerial dismissal and those for disciplinary dismissal, and concluded that neither set of requirements had been met. Accordingly, it fully accepted the employee’s claims. Based on this decision and the relevant legal principles, this article summarizes practical points to prevent similar disputes, from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: (i) whether a dismissal can be considered justified where, despite the existence of urgent managerial necessity, the employer failed to implement the statutory procedures for redundancy dismissal, such as efforts to avoid dismissal and consultation with the employees’ representative; and (ii) whether a disciplinary dismissal based on alleged embezzlement and negligent site management can be valid in the absence of specific identification of the grounds and supporting evidence.
Ⅲ. Key Findings of the Labor Relations Commission
The decision panel acknowledged that the company’s financial condition had deteriorated to a level where continued operation was impossible, and thus that urgent managerial necessity itself existed. However, it also found that there was no evidence whatsoever that the company had reviewed alternatives such as personnel or cost reductions to avoid dismissal, or that it had made efforts to avoid dismissal through reassignment, voluntary retirement, etc. Furthermore, the company had not carried out the statutory redundancy procedures of prior notification to, and consultation with, the employees’ representative regarding the criteria for dismissal and measures to avoid dismissal.
Accordingly, the panel held that this dismissal failed to satisfy the requirement of subsidiarity (last resort) for redundancy dismissal and the requirement of prior notification to and good-faith consultation with the employees’ representative under Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act, and that it was therefore difficult to recognize the dismissal as justified on managerial grounds.
In addition, the employer argued that certain employees, including the employee in question, had embezzled company funds and that, despite being the site manager, the employee had failed to manage the site properly, causing a deficit of approximately KRW 200 million and thereby damaging the company, such that immediate dismissal was unavoidable. However, the employer submitted no materials whatsoever to substantiate these allegations. Moreover, the dismissal notice sent to the employee stated the grounds for dismissal only as “all matters related to work,” without specifying any concrete misconduct or breach. On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal also failed to meet the requirements for a lawful disciplinary dismissal, namely, the specification of the grounds for dismissal and the existence of just cause, and thus constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, when a company invokes managerial reasons to carry out a redundancy dismissal, it is important to understand that the mere fact that the company is in financial difficulty does not render the dismissal justified. The employer must satisfy all statutory requirements, including efforts to avoid dismissal, reasonable and fair selection of employees to be dismissed, and prior consultation with the employees’ representative. In cases of disciplinary dismissal, employees should carefully check whether the dismissal notice sets out specific grounds for dismissal and whether there is objective evidence supporting the alleged misconduct.
If you suspect unfair dismissal in a similar situation, it is crucial to secure as many relevant documents as possible—such as the dismissal notice, minutes of the personnel committee, and managerial/financial data—and to respond promptly so as not to miss the deadline for filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission (three months from the date of dismissal).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where the company is in such severe financial distress that urgent managerial necessity can be recognized, it is necessary, before opting for redundancy dismissal, to review and implement dismissal-avoidance measures such as a hiring freeze, adjustments to wages and benefits, reassignment, and voluntary or honorary retirement, and to document these processes. In addition, under Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act, it is essential for proving the lawfulness of the dismissal to notify the employees’ representative of the criteria for dismissal and the measures to avoid dismissal at least 50 days before the planned date of dismissal and to record the course of consultations in minutes, official letters, etc.
Where the employer also wishes to assert disciplinary dismissal, it must clearly state the specific misconduct and factual circumstances in the dismissal notice and secure accounting records, reports, written statements, and other materials capable of proving the alleged facts such as embezzlement, breach of trust, or gross negligence. Employers should bear in mind that vague expressions (e.g., “all matters related to work”) are unlikely to be accepted as sufficient to establish justification before the Labor Relations Commission.
To prevent this type of unfair dismissal dispute, employers should prepare and refine work rules and HR regulations that separately set out the requirements and procedures for redundancy dismissal and disciplinary dismissal, and, when actually implementing such measures, should consult with a professional labor consultant such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance to review potential legal risks.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Justifiability of Managerial Dismissal
The company’s financial condition had deteriorated to the point where continued operation was impossible, so that urgent managerial necessity was recognized. However, the company failed to satisfy the requirements for managerial dismissal because it proceeded with the dismissal without undertaking efforts to avoid dismissal or following procedures such as consultation with the employees’ representative.
(b) Justifiability of Dismissal Attributable to the Employee
The employer argued that certain employees, including the employee concerned, had embezzled company funds and that, despite being the site manager, the employee failed to manage the site, resulting in a deficit of approximately KRW 200 million and causing damage to the company, such that immediate dismissal was unavoidable. However, the employer submitted no materials to support these allegations, and the grounds for dismissal stated in the dismissal notice sent to the employee were vaguely described as “all matters related to work,” which cannot be regarded as specifying the grounds for dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal failed to meet the requirements for a lawful dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Key Findings of the Labor Relations Commission
(a) Justifiability of Managerial Dismissal
The company’s financial condition had deteriorated to the point where continued operation was impossible, so that urgent managerial necessity was recognized. However, the company failed to satisfy the requirements for managerial dismissal because it proceeded with the dismissal without undertaking efforts to avoid dismissal or following procedures such as consultation with the employees’ representative.
(b) Justifiability of Dismissal Attributable to the Employee
The employer argued that certain employees, including the employee concerned, had embezzled company funds and that, despite being the site manager, the employee failed to manage the site, resulting in a deficit of approximately KRW 200 million and causing damage to the company, such that immediate dismissal was unavoidable. However, the employer submitted no materials to support these allegations, and the grounds for dismissal stated in the dismissal notice sent to the employee were vaguely described as “all matters related to work,” which cannot be regarded as specifying the grounds for dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal failed to meet the requirements for a lawful dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Non-fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, procedural defects (site manager redundancy dismissal), restructuring, disciplinary dismissal, 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, “Existence of Dismissal (Return of Vehicle and Documents)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision, in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to procedural defects (site manager redundancy dismissal) can be found in the “Procedural Defects (Site Manager Redundancy Dismissal) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “procedural defects (site manager redundancy dismissal).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3880 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.17 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the company carried out a redundancy dismissal of a site manager on the ground that its financial condition had deteriorated to the point that continued operation of the business was impossible. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The employer argued, on the one hand, that this was a managerial (economic) dismissal, and on the other hand, that there were also grounds for disciplinary dismissal based on alleged embezzlement of company funds and negligent site management. However, the employer failed to provide supporting materials or a written notice specifying the concrete grounds for dismissal, which became the central issue in the case.
In this unfair dismissal remedy case, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined both the requirements for managerial dismissal and those for disciplinary dismissal, and concluded that neither set of requirements had been met. Accordingly, it fully accepted the employee’s claims. Based on this decision and the relevant legal principles, this article summarizes practical points to prevent similar disputes, from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: (i) whether a dismissal can be considered justified where, despite the existence of urgent managerial necessity, the employer failed to implement the statutory procedures for redundancy dismissal, such as efforts to avoid dismissal and consultation with the employees’ representative; and (ii) whether a disciplinary dismissal based on alleged embezzlement and negligent site management can be valid in the absence of specific identification of the grounds and supporting evidence.
Ⅲ. Key Findings of the Labor Relations Commission
The decision panel acknowledged that the company’s financial condition had deteriorated to a level where continued operation was impossible, and thus that urgent managerial necessity itself existed. However, it also found that there was no evidence whatsoever that the company had reviewed alternatives such as personnel or cost reductions to avoid dismissal, or that it had made efforts to avoid dismissal through reassignment, voluntary retirement, etc. Furthermore, the company had not carried out the statutory redundancy procedures of prior notification to, and consultation with, the employees’ representative regarding the criteria for dismissal and measures to avoid dismissal.
Accordingly, the panel held that this dismissal failed to satisfy the requirement of subsidiarity (last resort) for redundancy dismissal and the requirement of prior notification to and good-faith consultation with the employees’ representative under Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act, and that it was therefore difficult to recognize the dismissal as justified on managerial grounds.
In addition, the employer argued that certain employees, including the employee in question, had embezzled company funds and that, despite being the site manager, the employee had failed to manage the site properly, causing a deficit of approximately KRW 200 million and thereby damaging the company, such that immediate dismissal was unavoidable. However, the employer submitted no materials whatsoever to substantiate these allegations. Moreover, the dismissal notice sent to the employee stated the grounds for dismissal only as “all matters related to work,” without specifying any concrete misconduct or breach. On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal also failed to meet the requirements for a lawful disciplinary dismissal, namely, the specification of the grounds for dismissal and the existence of just cause, and thus constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, when a company invokes managerial reasons to carry out a redundancy dismissal, it is important to understand that the mere fact that the company is in financial difficulty does not render the dismissal justified. The employer must satisfy all statutory requirements, including efforts to avoid dismissal, reasonable and fair selection of employees to be dismissed, and prior consultation with the employees’ representative. In cases of disciplinary dismissal, employees should carefully check whether the dismissal notice sets out specific grounds for dismissal and whether there is objective evidence supporting the alleged misconduct.
If you suspect unfair dismissal in a similar situation, it is crucial to secure as many relevant documents as possible—such as the dismissal notice, minutes of the personnel committee, and managerial/financial data—and to respond promptly so as not to miss the deadline for filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission (three months from the date of dismissal).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where the company is in such severe financial distress that urgent managerial necessity can be recognized, it is necessary, before opting for redundancy dismissal, to review and implement dismissal-avoidance measures such as a hiring freeze, adjustments to wages and benefits, reassignment, and voluntary or honorary retirement, and to document these processes. In addition, under Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act, it is essential for proving the lawfulness of the dismissal to notify the employees’ representative of the criteria for dismissal and the measures to avoid dismissal at least 50 days before the planned date of dismissal and to record the course of consultations in minutes, official letters, etc.
Where the employer also wishes to assert disciplinary dismissal, it must clearly state the specific misconduct and factual circumstances in the dismissal notice and secure accounting records, reports, written statements, and other materials capable of proving the alleged facts such as embezzlement, breach of trust, or gross negligence. Employers should bear in mind that vague expressions (e.g., “all matters related to work”) are unlikely to be accepted as sufficient to establish justification before the Labor Relations Commission.
To prevent this type of unfair dismissal dispute, employers should prepare and refine work rules and HR regulations that separately set out the requirements and procedures for redundancy dismissal and disciplinary dismissal, and, when actually implementing such measures, should consult with a professional labor consultant such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance to review potential legal risks.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Justifiability of Managerial Dismissal
The company’s financial condition had deteriorated to the point where continued operation was impossible, so that urgent managerial necessity was recognized. However, the company failed to satisfy the requirements for managerial dismissal because it proceeded with the dismissal without undertaking efforts to avoid dismissal or following procedures such as consultation with the employees’ representative.
(b) Justifiability of Dismissal Attributable to the Employee
The employer argued that certain employees, including the employee concerned, had embezzled company funds and that, despite being the site manager, the employee failed to manage the site, resulting in a deficit of approximately KRW 200 million and causing damage to the company, such that immediate dismissal was unavoidable. However, the employer submitted no materials to support these allegations, and the grounds for dismissal stated in the dismissal notice sent to the employee were vaguely described as “all matters related to work,” which cannot be regarded as specifying the grounds for dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal failed to meet the requirements for a lawful dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Key Findings of the Labor Relations Commission
(a) Justifiability of Managerial Dismissal
The company’s financial condition had deteriorated to the point where continued operation was impossible, so that urgent managerial necessity was recognized. However, the company failed to satisfy the requirements for managerial dismissal because it proceeded with the dismissal without undertaking efforts to avoid dismissal or following procedures such as consultation with the employees’ representative.
(b) Justifiability of Dismissal Attributable to the Employee
The employer argued that certain employees, including the employee concerned, had embezzled company funds and that, despite being the site manager, the employee failed to manage the site, resulting in a deficit of approximately KRW 200 million and causing damage to the company, such that immediate dismissal was unavoidable. However, the employer submitted no materials to support these allegations, and the grounds for dismissal stated in the dismissal notice sent to the employee were vaguely described as “all matters related to work,” which cannot be regarded as specifying the grounds for dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal failed to meet the requirements for a lawful dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Non-fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, procedural defects (site manager redundancy dismissal), restructuring, disciplinary dismissal, 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, “Existence of Dismissal (Return of Vehicle and Documents)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision, in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to procedural defects (site manager redundancy dismissal) can be found in the “Procedural Defects (Site Manager Redundancy Dismissal) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
