Corporate trends / Performance record
“Dismissal (Two Non-Appearances)” in Unfair Dismissal Relief Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 194)
- Date2026/02/11 04:04
- Read 233
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed (“gakha”) on the issue of “dismissal (two non-appearances).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3994 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.15 · Case type: Dismissal (각하)
Summary of key issue: Under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, enacted to ensure the prompt and fair exercise of the Commission’s powers and duties, provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, or where the notice of appearance is returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” the application for remedy shall be dismissed. After filing for relief, the worker in this case…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. However, the worker repeatedly failed to appear at the hearings scheduled by the Commission, and the application for remedy was ultimately dismissed.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, relying on Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission enacted under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, concluded that the worker no longer had any intention to pursue the remedy application and closed the case.
This decision does not address the substantive legitimacy of the dismissal itself; rather, it illustrates how the worker’s duty to appear and the requirements for “dismissal (각하)” are applied in Labor Relations Commission procedures.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where a worker who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal fails to appear at two consecutive hearings of the Labor Relations Commission, can the Commission, absent special circumstances, dismiss the application pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the worker failed to appear at both of the scheduled hearings on 2025.11.25 and 2025.12.15 after filing the application for remedy; that no grounds beyond the worker’s control or other justifiable reasons for non-appearance were substantiated; and that Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission expressly provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, the application shall be dismissed on the ground that the intention to pursue the application has been abandoned.”
In light of these points, the panel determined that the worker no longer had the intention to maintain the application for remedy.
The panel therefore held that, before examining and ruling on the substantive legitimacy of the dismissal, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal itself should be dismissed on the procedural ground of failure to satisfy the requirements for filing.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
If a worker wishes to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal, they must either appear on the hearing dates notified by the Labor Relations Commission or, if unavoidable circumstances arise, file a request for postponement in advance or otherwise explain the reasons.
Under Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, if the worker fails to comply with the summons to appear on two or more occasions, the application may be dismissed for “defective filing requirements,” regardless of whether the dismissal was substantively unfair. In such a case, the worker may lose the opportunity to obtain relief at the Commission stage.
In particular, by obtaining assistance from professionals such as Labor Law Firm Law&, workers can reduce procedural risks—such as managing hearing dates, submitting written statements, and organizing reasons for non-appearance—and thereby lay the groundwork for having the case proceed to a substantive decision.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where a worker who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal repeatedly fails to appear at the hearings, it is necessary to formulate a response strategy with the possibility of dismissal (각하) under the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission in mind. However, regardless of whether the application is dismissed, it is advisable to thoroughly prepare internal evidence, statements of reasons, and other materials concerning the legitimacy of the dismissal in anticipation of possible re-filing or litigation.
Moreover, employers should bear in mind that faithfully complying with the Commission’s procedures—such as responding to hearing notices and engaging in mediation or settlement proposals—helps to establish the company’s credibility and the perceived legitimacy of its actions in any future dispute.
In this type of case, both workers and employers should remember that compliance with Labor Relations Commission procedures can be just as decisive as the substantive question of whether the dismissal was unfair. Labor Law Firm Law& provides support in unfair dismissal and redundancy cases to help parties obtain effective relief, including on these procedural issues.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, enacted to ensure the prompt and fair exercise of the Commission’s powers and duties, provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, or where the notice of appearance is returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” the application for remedy shall be dismissed.
Taking into account that, after filing the application for remedy, the worker failed without special reason to attend the hearings consecutively held on 2025.11.25 and 2025.12.15, among other circumstances, it is determined that the worker no longer had the intention to pursue the application for remedy.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, enacted to ensure the prompt and fair exercise of the Commission’s powers and duties, provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, or where the notice of appearance is returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” the application for remedy shall be dismissed.
Taking into account that, after filing the application for remedy, the worker failed without special reason to attend the hearings consecutively held on 2025.11.25 and 2025.12.15, among other circumstances, it is determined that the worker no longer had the intention to pursue the application for remedy. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case type: Dismissal (각하)
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Dismissal (two non-appearances), 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Leaving Early on First Day of Health Deterioration)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to dismissal (two non-appearances) at “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal (Two Non-Appearances).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed (“gakha”) on the issue of “dismissal (two non-appearances).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3994 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.15 · Case type: Dismissal (각하)
Summary of key issue: Under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, enacted to ensure the prompt and fair exercise of the Commission’s powers and duties, provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, or where the notice of appearance is returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” the application for remedy shall be dismissed. After filing for relief, the worker in this case…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. However, the worker repeatedly failed to appear at the hearings scheduled by the Commission, and the application for remedy was ultimately dismissed.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, relying on Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission enacted under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, concluded that the worker no longer had any intention to pursue the remedy application and closed the case.
This decision does not address the substantive legitimacy of the dismissal itself; rather, it illustrates how the worker’s duty to appear and the requirements for “dismissal (각하)” are applied in Labor Relations Commission procedures.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Where a worker who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal fails to appear at two consecutive hearings of the Labor Relations Commission, can the Commission, absent special circumstances, dismiss the application pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the worker failed to appear at both of the scheduled hearings on 2025.11.25 and 2025.12.15 after filing the application for remedy; that no grounds beyond the worker’s control or other justifiable reasons for non-appearance were substantiated; and that Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission expressly provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, the application shall be dismissed on the ground that the intention to pursue the application has been abandoned.”
In light of these points, the panel determined that the worker no longer had the intention to maintain the application for remedy.
The panel therefore held that, before examining and ruling on the substantive legitimacy of the dismissal, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal itself should be dismissed on the procedural ground of failure to satisfy the requirements for filing.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
If a worker wishes to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal, they must either appear on the hearing dates notified by the Labor Relations Commission or, if unavoidable circumstances arise, file a request for postponement in advance or otherwise explain the reasons.
Under Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, if the worker fails to comply with the summons to appear on two or more occasions, the application may be dismissed for “defective filing requirements,” regardless of whether the dismissal was substantively unfair. In such a case, the worker may lose the opportunity to obtain relief at the Commission stage.
In particular, by obtaining assistance from professionals such as Labor Law Firm Law&, workers can reduce procedural risks—such as managing hearing dates, submitting written statements, and organizing reasons for non-appearance—and thereby lay the groundwork for having the case proceed to a substantive decision.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where a worker who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal repeatedly fails to appear at the hearings, it is necessary to formulate a response strategy with the possibility of dismissal (각하) under the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission in mind. However, regardless of whether the application is dismissed, it is advisable to thoroughly prepare internal evidence, statements of reasons, and other materials concerning the legitimacy of the dismissal in anticipation of possible re-filing or litigation.
Moreover, employers should bear in mind that faithfully complying with the Commission’s procedures—such as responding to hearing notices and engaging in mediation or settlement proposals—helps to establish the company’s credibility and the perceived legitimacy of its actions in any future dispute.
In this type of case, both workers and employers should remember that compliance with Labor Relations Commission procedures can be just as decisive as the substantive question of whether the dismissal was unfair. Labor Law Firm Law& provides support in unfair dismissal and redundancy cases to help parties obtain effective relief, including on these procedural issues.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, enacted to ensure the prompt and fair exercise of the Commission’s powers and duties, provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, or where the notice of appearance is returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” the application for remedy shall be dismissed.
Taking into account that, after filing the application for remedy, the worker failed without special reason to attend the hearings consecutively held on 2025.11.25 and 2025.12.15, among other circumstances, it is determined that the worker no longer had the intention to pursue the application for remedy.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Under the delegation of Article 25 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, enacted to ensure the prompt and fair exercise of the Commission’s powers and duties, provides that “where the applicant fails to comply with a summons to appear on two or more occasions, or where the notice of appearance is returned on two or more occasions due to an unknown address or whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” the application for remedy shall be dismissed.
Taking into account that, after filing the application for remedy, the worker failed without special reason to attend the hearings consecutively held on 2025.11.25 and 2025.12.15, among other circumstances, it is determined that the worker no longer had the intention to pursue the application for remedy. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case type: Dismissal (각하)
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Dismissal (two non-appearances), 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Leaving Early on First Day of Health Deterioration)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to dismissal (two non-appearances) at “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal (Two Non-Appearances).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
