Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Procedural Defect (Failure to Notify the Personnel Committee)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 202)
- Date2026/02/14 04:13
- Read 230
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “procedural defect (failure to notify the personnel committee).”
[Case Information]
This case concluded with a full victory for the employee on the issue of “procedural defect (failure to notify the personnel committee).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9047 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.12 · Disposition: Fully Upheld
Summary of key issue: In dismissing the employee, the employer did not notify the employee of the convening of the personnel committee or its outcome, and did not provide any opportunity to present an explanation.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer resolved to dismiss the employee at a personnel committee meeting, but notified neither the fact that the committee was convened nor its outcome, and proceeded to give notice of dismissal without providing any opportunity for the employee to present an explanation. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission granted the application for remedy, holding that, even before examining whether there were grounds for disciplinary action, the violation of the disciplinary procedures alone rendered the dismissal unfair. This decision is of significant practical importance, as the same issue repeatedly arises in collective redundancies and disciplinary dismissals handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a dismissal carried out without notifying the employee of the convening and outcome of the personnel committee and without providing any opportunity to present an explanation—despite the company’s rules of employment prescribing procedures for convening the personnel committee and for explanation—constitutes unfair dismissal solely due to procedural defects, irrespective of the substantive validity of the grounds for discipline.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the employer, in convening the personnel committee, did not notify the employee at all of the fact of the meeting, its date, time and place, or the matters to be deliberated; that the employer also failed to notify the employee of the outcome of the personnel committee’s resolution; and that the employer did not in any substantive way provide the opportunity to present an explanation as expressly stipulated in the rules of employment.
The panel therefore held that the dismissal in this case clearly violated the disciplinary procedures set forth in the company’s rules of employment, and that it was unnecessary to examine whether grounds for discipline existed or whether such grounds were sufficiently serious, under social norms, to justify dismissal; the dismissal was unfair on procedural grounds alone.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee receives notice of dismissal or a severe disciplinary measure such as suspension, it is necessary first to check whether there was prior notice of the convening of the personnel committee, whether an opportunity to present an explanation was provided, and whether the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment were followed.
If the procedures were clearly violated, the employee may obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal from the Labor Relations Commission even where some grounds for discipline are acknowledged. Accordingly, employees should systematically secure evidence such as the dismissal notice, rules of employment, and text messages or emails related to the personnel committee.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is crucial for preventing disputes not only to emphasize the seriousness of the grounds for discipline, but also to faithfully comply, both in form and in substance, with the procedures prescribed in the rules of employment and personnel regulations. Employers should establish internal processes to: provide prior notice of the date, time, place, and matters to be deliberated by the personnel committee; allow sufficient preparation time and an opportunity for the employee to exercise the right to defense; and record the process and outcome in writing.
In this type of case, both employees and employers should bear in mind that notice of the disciplinary or personnel committee and the guarantee of an opportunity to present an explanation are not mere formalities, but the starting point for determining the legitimacy of a dismissal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In dismissing the employee, the employer did not notify the employee of the convening of the personnel committee or its outcome, and did not provide any opportunity to present an explanation. As this dismissal clearly violated the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the company’s rules of employment, it was found to be unfair without any need to examine the grounds for dismissal.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In dismissing the employee, the employer did not notify the employee of the convening of the personnel committee or its outcome, and did not provide any opportunity to present an explanation. As this dismissal clearly violated the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the company’s rules of employment, it was found to be unfair without any need to examine the grounds for dismissal.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Invalidity of Temporary Assignment (For Workplace Harassment Investigation Only)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Interview After Traffic Accident)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, procedural defect (failure to notify the personnel 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Invalidity of Temporary Assignment (For Workplace Harassment Investigation Only)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to procedural defect (failure to notify the personnel committee) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Procedural Defect (Failure to Notify the Personnel Committee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case concluded with a full victory for the employee on the issue of “procedural defect (failure to notify the personnel committee).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9047 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.12 · Disposition: Fully Upheld
Summary of key issue: In dismissing the employee, the employer did not notify the employee of the convening of the personnel committee or its outcome, and did not provide any opportunity to present an explanation.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer resolved to dismiss the employee at a personnel committee meeting, but notified neither the fact that the committee was convened nor its outcome, and proceeded to give notice of dismissal without providing any opportunity for the employee to present an explanation. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission granted the application for remedy, holding that, even before examining whether there were grounds for disciplinary action, the violation of the disciplinary procedures alone rendered the dismissal unfair. This decision is of significant practical importance, as the same issue repeatedly arises in collective redundancies and disciplinary dismissals handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a dismissal carried out without notifying the employee of the convening and outcome of the personnel committee and without providing any opportunity to present an explanation—despite the company’s rules of employment prescribing procedures for convening the personnel committee and for explanation—constitutes unfair dismissal solely due to procedural defects, irrespective of the substantive validity of the grounds for discipline.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the employer, in convening the personnel committee, did not notify the employee at all of the fact of the meeting, its date, time and place, or the matters to be deliberated; that the employer also failed to notify the employee of the outcome of the personnel committee’s resolution; and that the employer did not in any substantive way provide the opportunity to present an explanation as expressly stipulated in the rules of employment.
The panel therefore held that the dismissal in this case clearly violated the disciplinary procedures set forth in the company’s rules of employment, and that it was unnecessary to examine whether grounds for discipline existed or whether such grounds were sufficiently serious, under social norms, to justify dismissal; the dismissal was unfair on procedural grounds alone.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee receives notice of dismissal or a severe disciplinary measure such as suspension, it is necessary first to check whether there was prior notice of the convening of the personnel committee, whether an opportunity to present an explanation was provided, and whether the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment were followed.
If the procedures were clearly violated, the employee may obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal from the Labor Relations Commission even where some grounds for discipline are acknowledged. Accordingly, employees should systematically secure evidence such as the dismissal notice, rules of employment, and text messages or emails related to the personnel committee.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is crucial for preventing disputes not only to emphasize the seriousness of the grounds for discipline, but also to faithfully comply, both in form and in substance, with the procedures prescribed in the rules of employment and personnel regulations. Employers should establish internal processes to: provide prior notice of the date, time, place, and matters to be deliberated by the personnel committee; allow sufficient preparation time and an opportunity for the employee to exercise the right to defense; and record the process and outcome in writing.
In this type of case, both employees and employers should bear in mind that notice of the disciplinary or personnel committee and the guarantee of an opportunity to present an explanation are not mere formalities, but the starting point for determining the legitimacy of a dismissal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In dismissing the employee, the employer did not notify the employee of the convening of the personnel committee or its outcome, and did not provide any opportunity to present an explanation. As this dismissal clearly violated the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the company’s rules of employment, it was found to be unfair without any need to examine the grounds for dismissal.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In dismissing the employee, the employer did not notify the employee of the convening of the personnel committee or its outcome, and did not provide any opportunity to present an explanation. As this dismissal clearly violated the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the company’s rules of employment, it was found to be unfair without any need to examine the grounds for dismissal.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Invalidity of Temporary Assignment (For Workplace Harassment Investigation Only)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Interview After Traffic Accident)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, procedural defect (failure to notify the personnel 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Invalidity of Temporary Assignment (For Workplace Harassment Investigation Only)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to procedural defect (failure to notify the personnel committee) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Procedural Defect (Failure to Notify the Personnel Committee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
