Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Dismissal (Two Absences from Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 189)
- Date2026/02/09 04:08
- Read 240
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “dismissal (two absences from hearing).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3856 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.15 · Case Type: Dismissal
Key Issue Summary: The hearing was held in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal was heard before the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, where the applicant sought relief from the Commission on the ground that the dismissal was unfair.
The Labor Relations Commission convened hearings on November 17, 2025 and December 15, 2025. However, as the applicant failed to appear on both occasions, the Commission ultimately dismissed the case pursuant to the Labor Relations Commission Rules.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where a worker who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal fails to appear at the Labor Relations Commission hearing twice in a row, the Commission may 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 hearing scheduled for November 17, 2025 was postponed due to the applicant’s non-appearance; that the applicant again failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing on December 15, 2025; and that Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear at a hearing on two or more occasions, or where the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the intent to apply due to unknown address, unknown whereabouts, or other such reasons, the case shall be dismissed.”
In light of the above, the panel held that, before reaching the stage of substantive review of the legitimacy of the dismissal in this case, it was appropriate to regard the applicant’s intent to apply as having been abandoned due to non-appearance, and to dismiss the application for remedy.
[Legal Commentary on the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning]
According to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules and related precedents and commentaries, in remedy cases such as unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal, if the applicant, despite having received two or more notices to appear, fails to respond to the hearing, the Labor Relations Commission may issue a “dismissal” decision without proceeding to a substantive hearing.
This reflects the view that, even though the procedure is designed to protect workers’ rights, there is no longer any practical benefit in maintaining the remedy procedure if the applicant does not cooperate with the process. In effect, the case is filtered out at the stage of determining the admissibility of the application.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
If a worker has filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission in relation to an unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal, attendance at the hearing is not optional but mandatory. If it is unavoidably difficult to attend, the worker should first check whether the reason falls under those recognized in the Labor Relations Commission Rules (such as a court hearing date, overseas business trip, serious illness, funeral, etc.), then submit an application for postponement at least three days before the hearing date, together with supporting documents.
If, after one non-appearance and rescheduling of the hearing, the worker again fails to appear, the application may be deemed abandoned and dismissed, as in this case. Accordingly, it is essential to manage schedules carefully and to maintain communication (promptly notifying the Commission of any change of address or contact information). If it is difficult to handle the procedure alone, it is advisable to use the free certified labor attorney support system or appoint a representative so that obligations such as “attendance and submission of materials” can be fulfilled reliably.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it should be understood that even if the applicant repeatedly fails to appear, the Labor Relations Commission does not immediately dismiss the case, but strictly examines whether the requirements under the Rules are met. Therefore, the employer should attend the hearing in good faith and fully present the company’s arguments and supporting evidence so as to minimize the risk of an unfavorable decision even if the hearing proceeds in the applicant’s absence.
Even where dismissal of the case is anticipated due to the applicant’s non-appearance, it is still advisable to prepare a written response and evidence materials before the decision is issued, and to organize HR and labor records and procedures (such as the written statement of dismissal reasons and minutes of the disciplinary committee) in anticipation of the possibility of a renewed application or separate litigation. Consulting with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to establish an initial response strategy can help reduce dispute risk.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A hearing was held on November 17, 2025, but was postponed due to the applicant’s non-appearance. The applicant again failed to appear at the subsequent hearing held on December 15, 2025. Accordingly, this case falls under Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, which provides that where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear at a hearing on two or more occasions, or where two or more notices to appear at a hearing are returned due to unknown address or unknown whereabouts, or where the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the intent to apply due to other such reasons, the case shall be dismissed. It was therefore appropriate to dismiss the case.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A hearing was held on November 17, 2025, but was postponed due to the applicant’s non-appearance. The applicant again failed to appear at the subsequent hearing held on December 15, 2025. Accordingly, this case falls under Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, which provides that where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear at a hearing on two or more occasions, or where two or more notices to appear at a hearing are returned due to unknown address or unknown whereabouts, or where the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the intent to apply due to other such reasons, the case shall be dismissed. It was therefore appropriate to dismiss the case. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Type: Dismissal
- “No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Type: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal (two absences from hearing), other, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Voluntary Resignation (Severance Settlement Agreement)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to dismissal (two absences from hearing) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal (Two Absences from Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “dismissal (two absences from hearing).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3856 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.15 · Case Type: Dismissal
Key Issue Summary: The hearing was held in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal was heard before the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, where the applicant sought relief from the Commission on the ground that the dismissal was unfair.
The Labor Relations Commission convened hearings on November 17, 2025 and December 15, 2025. However, as the applicant failed to appear on both occasions, the Commission ultimately dismissed the case pursuant to the Labor Relations Commission Rules.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where a worker who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal fails to appear at the Labor Relations Commission hearing twice in a row, the Commission may 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 hearing scheduled for November 17, 2025 was postponed due to the applicant’s non-appearance; that the applicant again failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing on December 15, 2025; and that Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear at a hearing on two or more occasions, or where the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the intent to apply due to unknown address, unknown whereabouts, or other such reasons, the case shall be dismissed.”
In light of the above, the panel held that, before reaching the stage of substantive review of the legitimacy of the dismissal in this case, it was appropriate to regard the applicant’s intent to apply as having been abandoned due to non-appearance, and to dismiss the application for remedy.
[Legal Commentary on the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning]
According to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules and related precedents and commentaries, in remedy cases such as unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal, if the applicant, despite having received two or more notices to appear, fails to respond to the hearing, the Labor Relations Commission may issue a “dismissal” decision without proceeding to a substantive hearing.
This reflects the view that, even though the procedure is designed to protect workers’ rights, there is no longer any practical benefit in maintaining the remedy procedure if the applicant does not cooperate with the process. In effect, the case is filtered out at the stage of determining the admissibility of the application.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
If a worker has filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission in relation to an unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal, attendance at the hearing is not optional but mandatory. If it is unavoidably difficult to attend, the worker should first check whether the reason falls under those recognized in the Labor Relations Commission Rules (such as a court hearing date, overseas business trip, serious illness, funeral, etc.), then submit an application for postponement at least three days before the hearing date, together with supporting documents.
If, after one non-appearance and rescheduling of the hearing, the worker again fails to appear, the application may be deemed abandoned and dismissed, as in this case. Accordingly, it is essential to manage schedules carefully and to maintain communication (promptly notifying the Commission of any change of address or contact information). If it is difficult to handle the procedure alone, it is advisable to use the free certified labor attorney support system or appoint a representative so that obligations such as “attendance and submission of materials” can be fulfilled reliably.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it should be understood that even if the applicant repeatedly fails to appear, the Labor Relations Commission does not immediately dismiss the case, but strictly examines whether the requirements under the Rules are met. Therefore, the employer should attend the hearing in good faith and fully present the company’s arguments and supporting evidence so as to minimize the risk of an unfavorable decision even if the hearing proceeds in the applicant’s absence.
Even where dismissal of the case is anticipated due to the applicant’s non-appearance, it is still advisable to prepare a written response and evidence materials before the decision is issued, and to organize HR and labor records and procedures (such as the written statement of dismissal reasons and minutes of the disciplinary committee) in anticipation of the possibility of a renewed application or separate litigation. Consulting with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to establish an initial response strategy can help reduce dispute risk.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A hearing was held on November 17, 2025, but was postponed due to the applicant’s non-appearance. The applicant again failed to appear at the subsequent hearing held on December 15, 2025. Accordingly, this case falls under Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, which provides that where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear at a hearing on two or more occasions, or where two or more notices to appear at a hearing are returned due to unknown address or unknown whereabouts, or where the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the intent to apply due to other such reasons, the case shall be dismissed. It was therefore appropriate to dismiss the case.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A hearing was held on November 17, 2025, but was postponed due to the applicant’s non-appearance. The applicant again failed to appear at the subsequent hearing held on December 15, 2025. Accordingly, this case falls under Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, which provides that where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear at a hearing on two or more occasions, or where two or more notices to appear at a hearing are returned due to unknown address or unknown whereabouts, or where the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the intent to apply due to other such reasons, the case shall be dismissed. It was therefore appropriate to dismiss the case. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Type: Dismissal
- “No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Type: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal (two absences from hearing), other, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Voluntary Resignation (Severance Settlement Agreement)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to dismissal (two absences from hearing) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal (Two Absences from Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
