Corporate trends / Performance record
Procedural Defects (Failure to Convene a Disciplinary Committee) in Unfair Dismissal Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 171)
- Date2026/02/02 04:12
- Read 233
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee fully prevailed on the issue of “procedural defects (failure to convene a disciplinary committee).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9128 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.17 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employee has a remedial interest in applying for a monetary compensation order
Even if the employer orders reinstatement to the original position and pays an amount equivalent to wages, absent special circumstances, the employee’s remedial interest in obtaining a monetary compensation order does not extinguish. Accordingly, the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order retains remedial interest.
B. Whether the dismissal is justified
The employer carried out the dismissal without convening the disciplinary committee prescribed in the rules of employment, thereby failing to secure the procedural legitimacy of the dismissal.
C.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after dismissing the employee, the employer ordered reinstatement to the original position and partially paid wages corresponding to the dismissal period while the proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission were pending. The employee, however, continued to challenge the dismissal as unfair and applied for a monetary compensation order.
In this case, where the issues were whether the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, whether there remained remedial interest in a monetary compensation order, and how to calculate the amount of such order, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission fully accepted the employee’s claims. Labor Law Firm Law& seeks to summarize the practically important implications arising from this type of dispute.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “(i) whether the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order retains remedial interest even after the employer cancels the dismissal and provides reinstatement and payment of an amount equivalent to wages, and (ii) whether a dismissal carried out without going through the disciplinary committee required under the rules of employment constitutes unfair dismissal due to procedural defects.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held that, even where the employer has ordered reinstatement to the original position and paid an amount equivalent to wages, absent special circumstances, it cannot be viewed that the employee’s remedial interest in obtaining a monetary compensation order from the Labor Relations Commission has extinguished.
The panel further found that the employer proceeded directly to dismissal without convening the disciplinary committee prescribed in the rules of employment, thereby failing to secure the procedural legitimacy of the dismissal.
Taking into account that the employee chose monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, and that the amount of the monetary compensation order could be reasonably calculated by reflecting interim earnings and a portion of the wages already paid during the dismissal period:
The dismissal in this case was held to constitute unfair dismissal lacking procedural legitimacy, and the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order was found to still have remedial interest. The Commission therefore granted the monetary compensation order and held that it was appropriate to calculate the compensation amount by deducting interim earnings and a portion of the wages received during the dismissal period.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that, even if the employer subsequently cancels the dismissal, proposes reinstatement, or partially pays an amount equivalent to wages, where the employee does not wish to return to the original position, the employee may still be recognized as having substantial remedial interest in applying to the Labor Relations Commission for a monetary compensation order.
In addition, where the rules of employment or a collective agreement prescribe procedures such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity to explain one’s position in cases of disciplinary action or dismissal, a dismissal carried out without following those procedures is highly likely to be found unfair due to procedural defects. It is therefore important to secure objective evidence as to what procedures were actually followed at the time the dismissal was notified.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
Before any dismissal, including disciplinary dismissal or redundancy dismissal, the company must strictly comply with the procedural requirements set out in the rules of employment and collective agreements, such as convening a disciplinary committee, providing prior notice, and guaranteeing an opportunity to be heard.
Furthermore, even if the company attempts an ex post settlement during an unfair dismissal dispute by issuing a reinstatement order or paying an amount equivalent to wages, the employee may still opt for monetary compensation and the Labor Relations Commission may issue a separate monetary compensation order. Accordingly, it is necessary to establish a structure that minimizes HR and labor-management risks from the pre-dismissal stage.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. 02.6741.0002)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employee has a remedial interest in applying for a monetary compensation order
Even if the employer orders reinstatement to the original position and pays an amount equivalent to wages, absent special circumstances, the employee’s remedial interest in obtaining a monetary compensation order does not extinguish. Accordingly, the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order retains remedial interest.
B. Whether the dismissal is justified
The employer carried out the dismissal without convening the disciplinary committee prescribed in the rules of employment, thereby failing to secure the procedural legitimacy of the dismissal.
C. Calculation of the amount of the monetary compensation order
Since the employee wishes to receive monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, this is to be accepted. However, the amount of the monetary compensation order is to be calculated by taking into account interim earnings and a portion of the wages received during the dismissal period.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the employee has a remedial interest in applying for a monetary compensation order
Even if the employer orders reinstatement to the original position and pays an amount equivalent to wages, absent special circumstances, the employee’s remedial interest in obtaining a monetary compensation order does not extinguish. Accordingly, the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order retains remedial interest.
B. Whether the dismissal is justified
The employer carried out the dismissal without convening the disciplinary committee prescribed in the rules of employment, thereby failing to secure the procedural legitimacy of the dismissal.
C. Calculation of the amount of the monetary compensation order
Since the employee wishes to receive monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, this is to be accepted. However, the amount of the monetary compensation order is to be calculated by taking into account interim earnings and a portion of the wages received during the dismissal period. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Number of Regular Employees (Business Suspension Immediately After Business Transfer)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, procedural defects (failure to convene a disciplinary committee), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Number of Regular Employees (Business Suspension Immediately After Business Transfer)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to procedural defects (failure to convene a disciplinary committee) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Procedural Defects (Failure to Convene a Disciplinary Committee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee fully prevailed on the issue of “procedural defects (failure to convene a disciplinary committee).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9128 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.17 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employee has a remedial interest in applying for a monetary compensation order
Even if the employer orders reinstatement to the original position and pays an amount equivalent to wages, absent special circumstances, the employee’s remedial interest in obtaining a monetary compensation order does not extinguish. Accordingly, the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order retains remedial interest.
B. Whether the dismissal is justified
The employer carried out the dismissal without convening the disciplinary committee prescribed in the rules of employment, thereby failing to secure the procedural legitimacy of the dismissal.
C.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after dismissing the employee, the employer ordered reinstatement to the original position and partially paid wages corresponding to the dismissal period while the proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission were pending. The employee, however, continued to challenge the dismissal as unfair and applied for a monetary compensation order.
In this case, where the issues were whether the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, whether there remained remedial interest in a monetary compensation order, and how to calculate the amount of such order, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission fully accepted the employee’s claims. Labor Law Firm Law& seeks to summarize the practically important implications arising from this type of dispute.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “(i) whether the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order retains remedial interest even after the employer cancels the dismissal and provides reinstatement and payment of an amount equivalent to wages, and (ii) whether a dismissal carried out without going through the disciplinary committee required under the rules of employment constitutes unfair dismissal due to procedural defects.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held that, even where the employer has ordered reinstatement to the original position and paid an amount equivalent to wages, absent special circumstances, it cannot be viewed that the employee’s remedial interest in obtaining a monetary compensation order from the Labor Relations Commission has extinguished.
The panel further found that the employer proceeded directly to dismissal without convening the disciplinary committee prescribed in the rules of employment, thereby failing to secure the procedural legitimacy of the dismissal.
Taking into account that the employee chose monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, and that the amount of the monetary compensation order could be reasonably calculated by reflecting interim earnings and a portion of the wages already paid during the dismissal period:
The dismissal in this case was held to constitute unfair dismissal lacking procedural legitimacy, and the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order was found to still have remedial interest. The Commission therefore granted the monetary compensation order and held that it was appropriate to calculate the compensation amount by deducting interim earnings and a portion of the wages received during the dismissal period.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that, even if the employer subsequently cancels the dismissal, proposes reinstatement, or partially pays an amount equivalent to wages, where the employee does not wish to return to the original position, the employee may still be recognized as having substantial remedial interest in applying to the Labor Relations Commission for a monetary compensation order.
In addition, where the rules of employment or a collective agreement prescribe procedures such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity to explain one’s position in cases of disciplinary action or dismissal, a dismissal carried out without following those procedures is highly likely to be found unfair due to procedural defects. It is therefore important to secure objective evidence as to what procedures were actually followed at the time the dismissal was notified.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
Before any dismissal, including disciplinary dismissal or redundancy dismissal, the company must strictly comply with the procedural requirements set out in the rules of employment and collective agreements, such as convening a disciplinary committee, providing prior notice, and guaranteeing an opportunity to be heard.
Furthermore, even if the company attempts an ex post settlement during an unfair dismissal dispute by issuing a reinstatement order or paying an amount equivalent to wages, the employee may still opt for monetary compensation and the Labor Relations Commission may issue a separate monetary compensation order. Accordingly, it is necessary to establish a structure that minimizes HR and labor-management risks from the pre-dismissal stage.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. 02.6741.0002)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employee has a remedial interest in applying for a monetary compensation order
Even if the employer orders reinstatement to the original position and pays an amount equivalent to wages, absent special circumstances, the employee’s remedial interest in obtaining a monetary compensation order does not extinguish. Accordingly, the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order retains remedial interest.
B. Whether the dismissal is justified
The employer carried out the dismissal without convening the disciplinary committee prescribed in the rules of employment, thereby failing to secure the procedural legitimacy of the dismissal.
C. Calculation of the amount of the monetary compensation order
Since the employee wishes to receive monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, this is to be accepted. However, the amount of the monetary compensation order is to be calculated by taking into account interim earnings and a portion of the wages received during the dismissal period.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the employee has a remedial interest in applying for a monetary compensation order
Even if the employer orders reinstatement to the original position and pays an amount equivalent to wages, absent special circumstances, the employee’s remedial interest in obtaining a monetary compensation order does not extinguish. Accordingly, the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order retains remedial interest.
B. Whether the dismissal is justified
The employer carried out the dismissal without convening the disciplinary committee prescribed in the rules of employment, thereby failing to secure the procedural legitimacy of the dismissal.
C. Calculation of the amount of the monetary compensation order
Since the employee wishes to receive monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, this is to be accepted. However, the amount of the monetary compensation order is to be calculated by taking into account interim earnings and a portion of the wages received during the dismissal period. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Number of Regular Employees (Business Suspension Immediately After Business Transfer)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, procedural defects (failure to convene a disciplinary committee), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Number of Regular Employees (Business Suspension Immediately After Business Transfer)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to procedural defects (failure to convene a disciplinary committee) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Procedural Defects (Failure to Convene a Disciplinary Committee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
