Corporate trends / Performance record
Waiver of Relief Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing) in Unfair Dismissal Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 185)
- Date2026/02/07 04:08
- Read 235
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “waiver of relief application (non-appearance at hearing).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3940 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.15 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: The employee did not respond to this Commission’s request to submit a statement of reasons and, despite personally receiving the registered mail notifying him of the hearing schedule, failed to attend two consecutive hearings. In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to regard the employee as having abandoned his intention to pursue the relief application. Accordingly, the employee’s application for remedy falls under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission. /
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission in response to the employer’s dismissal. However, the employee subsequently failed to comply with the Commission’s request to submit a statement of reasons and did not appear at two consecutive hearing dates.
During the course of the proceedings, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission notified the hearing schedule several times by registered mail. The case was closed on the ground that, although the employee had received these notices, he neither replied nor appeared at the hearings.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Whether, when an employee repeatedly fails to comply with the Labor Relations Commission’s requests to submit a statement of reasons and notices of hearing dates, and continues to be absent from the hearings, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal may be dismissed on the basis that the employee has abandoned the intention to pursue the application.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that the employee did not respond at all to the Commission’s request to submit a statement of reasons, that he personally received the registered mail notifying him of the hearing schedule but nonetheless failed to attend two hearings, and that Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provides that “where it is evident that there is no intention to maintain the application for remedy,” this constitutes a ground for dismissal.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found it reasonable to conclude that the employee no longer intended to proceed with the unfair dismissal relief procedure.
The panel therefore held that, without reaching the substantive question of whether the dismissal itself was unfair, the employee’s application for remedy fell under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Once an employee has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, the employee must faithfully comply with the procedure by responding within the prescribed deadlines to requests for submission of a statement of reasons, requests for supplementation, and notices of hearing dates. If attendance is unavoidably difficult, the employee should apply in advance for a postponement.
Even if the employee alleges the illegality of serious personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals, if the application is dismissed for failure to cooperate with the procedure, the employee will not obtain any determination on the lawfulness of the dismissal itself. Employees should therefore manage, at a minimum, the submission of supporting materials and their obligation to attend hearings.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when an employee files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employer should carefully check all notices and the progress of the proceedings from the Labor Relations Commission, and keep records of the employee’s attendance and the status of the procedure.
Even where dismissal of the application is anticipated due to the employee’s repeated non-appearance or failure to submit a statement of reasons, the employer should still organize and preserve materials that can prove the legitimacy of the grounds and procedures for dismissal, so that it can defend itself in subsequent civil litigation or other dispute procedures. It is advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and prepare a response strategy.
Such decisions show, in practice, that faithfully complying with the Labor Relations Commission procedure is the starting point for maintaining the benefit of relief, even before any determination is made on the substantive fairness of the dismissal itself.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee did not respond to this Commission’s request to submit a statement of reasons and, despite personally receiving the registered mail notifying him of the hearing schedule, failed to attend two hearings. In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to regard the employee as having abandoned his intention to pursue the relief application. Accordingly, the employee’s application for remedy falls under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employee did not respond to this Commission’s request to submit a statement of reasons and, despite personally receiving the registered mail notifying him of the hearing schedule, failed to attend two hearings. In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to regard the employee as having abandoned his intention to pursue the relief application. Accordingly, the employee’s application for remedy falls under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Unfair Grounds for Dismissal (Drunk Driving · Refusal of Job Reassignment)’–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, waiver of relief application (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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Unfair Grounds for Dismissal (Drunk Driving · Refusal of Job Reassignment)’–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to waiver of relief application (non-appearance at hearing) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Waiver of Relief Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “waiver of relief application (non-appearance at hearing).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3940 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.15 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: The employee did not respond to this Commission’s request to submit a statement of reasons and, despite personally receiving the registered mail notifying him of the hearing schedule, failed to attend two consecutive hearings. In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to regard the employee as having abandoned his intention to pursue the relief application. Accordingly, the employee’s application for remedy falls under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission. /
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission in response to the employer’s dismissal. However, the employee subsequently failed to comply with the Commission’s request to submit a statement of reasons and did not appear at two consecutive hearing dates.
During the course of the proceedings, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission notified the hearing schedule several times by registered mail. The case was closed on the ground that, although the employee had received these notices, he neither replied nor appeared at the hearings.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Whether, when an employee repeatedly fails to comply with the Labor Relations Commission’s requests to submit a statement of reasons and notices of hearing dates, and continues to be absent from the hearings, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal may be dismissed on the basis that the employee has abandoned the intention to pursue the application.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that the employee did not respond at all to the Commission’s request to submit a statement of reasons, that he personally received the registered mail notifying him of the hearing schedule but nonetheless failed to attend two hearings, and that Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provides that “where it is evident that there is no intention to maintain the application for remedy,” this constitutes a ground for dismissal.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found it reasonable to conclude that the employee no longer intended to proceed with the unfair dismissal relief procedure.
The panel therefore held that, without reaching the substantive question of whether the dismissal itself was unfair, the employee’s application for remedy fell under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Once an employee has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, the employee must faithfully comply with the procedure by responding within the prescribed deadlines to requests for submission of a statement of reasons, requests for supplementation, and notices of hearing dates. If attendance is unavoidably difficult, the employee should apply in advance for a postponement.
Even if the employee alleges the illegality of serious personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals, if the application is dismissed for failure to cooperate with the procedure, the employee will not obtain any determination on the lawfulness of the dismissal itself. Employees should therefore manage, at a minimum, the submission of supporting materials and their obligation to attend hearings.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when an employee files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employer should carefully check all notices and the progress of the proceedings from the Labor Relations Commission, and keep records of the employee’s attendance and the status of the procedure.
Even where dismissal of the application is anticipated due to the employee’s repeated non-appearance or failure to submit a statement of reasons, the employer should still organize and preserve materials that can prove the legitimacy of the grounds and procedures for dismissal, so that it can defend itself in subsequent civil litigation or other dispute procedures. It is advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and prepare a response strategy.
Such decisions show, in practice, that faithfully complying with the Labor Relations Commission procedure is the starting point for maintaining the benefit of relief, even before any determination is made on the substantive fairness of the dismissal itself.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee did not respond to this Commission’s request to submit a statement of reasons and, despite personally receiving the registered mail notifying him of the hearing schedule, failed to attend two hearings. In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to regard the employee as having abandoned his intention to pursue the relief application. Accordingly, the employee’s application for remedy falls under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employee did not respond to this Commission’s request to submit a statement of reasons and, despite personally receiving the registered mail notifying him of the hearing schedule, failed to attend two hearings. In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to regard the employee as having abandoned his intention to pursue the relief application. Accordingly, the employee’s application for remedy falls under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Unfair Grounds for Dismissal (Drunk Driving · Refusal of Job Reassignment)’–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, waiver of relief application (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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Unfair Grounds for Dismissal (Drunk Driving · Refusal of Job Reassignment)’–Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to waiver of relief application (non-appearance at hearing) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Waiver of Relief Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
