Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Exclusion Period (Disputed Date of Dismissal)’ in Unfair Dismissal Relief Cases (Unfair Dismissal 235)
- Date2026/02/25 04:13
- Read 218
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of the “exclusion period (disputed date of dismissal).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae243 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.26 · Case Result: Dismissal (for procedural reasons)
Key Issue Summary:
(a) Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act provides that an application for relief from unfair dismissal, etc. must be filed within three months from the date on which the unfair dismissal, etc. occurred.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming unfair dismissal. The application was dismissed on the ground that the filing period had expired. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission determined the actual date of dismissal based on materials such as an audio recording of the conversation at the time of dismissal submitted by the worker, and then examined whether the three‑month exclusion period under Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act had elapsed.
The issue in this case was whether the three‑month exclusion period for filing an application for relief from unfair dismissal had expired “where the date of dismissal alleged by the worker differed from the actual date of dismissal.”
The panel held that, in light of the fact that the creation date of the audio file recording the conversation at the time of dismissal submitted by the worker was confirmed as 8 September 2025, and that the day of the conversation was referred to as “Monday” in the recording while 10 September 2025 was in fact a Wednesday, it was reasonable to regard the actual date of dismissal as 8 September 2025, contrary to the worker’s assertion.
Given that the actual date of dismissal was thus 8 September 2025, the worker’s application for relief filed on 10 December 2025 was deemed to have been filed after the lapse of three months from the date on which the unfair dismissal occurred. The Commission therefore held that the right to apply for relief had already been extinguished and dismissed the application as inadmissible.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was how to determine the “date on which the dismissal occurred,” which serves as the starting point for the three‑month exclusion period for filing an application for relief from unfair dismissal under Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and, as a result, whether the application for relief from unfair dismissal filed with the Labor Relations Commission was lawfully filed within that period.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
First, the Commission viewed the three‑month period under Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act as an exclusion period, such that once it has elapsed, the right to apply for relief itself is extinguished and cannot be revived even if there is a justifiable reason.
Second, under the Commission’s Rules, in cases of dismissal, the starting date is, in principle, the date of dismissal stated in the written notice of dismissal received by the worker. However, in cases such as this where there is a dispute over the actual date of dismissal, the Commission must determine the “actual date on which the dismissal occurred” by comprehensively considering objective materials such as the creation date of the audio file and references to the day of the week in the conversation.
Third, since the application for relief was filed after three months had elapsed from the specifically determined actual date of dismissal (8 September 2025), the Commission held that the application must be dismissed for lapse of the exclusion period, without the need to proceed to a substantive determination on the existence of unfair dismissal or the legitimacy of a redundancy dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, once you consider that you have been unfairly dismissed, you must give top priority to managing the three‑month exclusion period for filing an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, regardless of whether the dismissal is substantively justified.
In particular, where dismissal is effected verbally, via text message or messenger, or through termination of coverage under the four major social insurances, you should organize and retain evidence regarding “when the dismissal occurred” (such as the date of notice, recordings, message captures, etc.). You should also bear in mind that materials you submit yourself may lead to an earlier recognition of the actual dismissal date.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to prevent unnecessary disputes over the dismissal date by clearly notifying the grounds and timing of dismissal in writing, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Further, where an application for relief from unfair dismissal appears to have been filed after the lapse of the exclusion period at the Labor Relations Commission stage, you should be prepared to present objective materials such as the written notice of dismissal, personnel records, recordings, and text messages to clearly prove the “date on which the dismissal occurred,” so that the dispute can be resolved at the level of procedural and formal requirements before reaching the substantive merits.
In this type of case, the Commission strictly treats the filing period as an “exclusion period,” which, as a rule, is not restored even if there is a justifiable reason. Accordingly, before contesting whether a dismissal or redundancy is unfair, both parties should carefully confirm compliance with the filing period. Workers and employers alike who wish to utilize the Labor Relations Commission procedures should, through this decision, once again recognize the importance of managing the application period and securing evidence to establish the dismissal date.
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act provides that an application for relief from unfair dismissal, etc. must be filed within three months from the date on which the unfair dismissal, etc. occurred.
(b) The worker claimed to have been dismissed on 10 September 2025 and filed an application for relief on 10 December 2025. However, considering that the creation date of the audio file recording the conversation at the time of dismissal submitted by the worker was confirmed as 8 September 2025, and that the day of the conversation was referred to as Monday in the recording (while 10 September 2025 was a Wednesday), it is reasonable to regard the actual date of dismissal as 8 September 2025.
(c) Therefore, the worker’s application for relief is inadmissible, as it was filed after three months had elapsed from the date on which the unfair dismissal, etc. occurred, at which point the right to apply for relief had already been extinguished.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act provides that an application for relief from unfair dismissal, etc. must be filed within three months from the date on which the unfair dismissal, etc. occurred.
(b) The worker claimed to have been dismissed on 10 September 2025 and filed an application for relief on 10 December 2025. However, considering that the creation date of the audio file recording the conversation at the time of dismissal submitted by the worker was confirmed as 8 September 2025, and that the day of the conversation was referred to as Monday in the recording (while 10 September 2025 was a Wednesday), it is reasonable to regard the actual date of dismissal as 8 September 2025.
(c) Therefore, the worker’s application for relief is inadmissible, as it was filed after three months had elapsed from the date on which the unfair dismissal, etc. occurred, at which point the right to apply for relief had already been extinguished. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Reinstatement to Original Position · Completion of Wage Payment)’ in Unfair Dismissal Cases
- ‘Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ in Unfair Dismissal Cases – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Dismissal
- ‘Existence of Dismissal (Alleged Voluntary Resignation by Agreement)’ in Unfair Dismissal Cases
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, exclusion period (disputed date of dismissal), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Reinstatement to Original Position · Completion of Wage Payment)’ in Unfair Dismissal Cases,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to the exclusion period (disputed date of dismissal) via the “List of Decisions Related to Exclusion Period (Disputed Date of Dismissal).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of the “exclusion period (disputed date of dismissal).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae243 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.26 · Case Result: Dismissal (for procedural reasons)
Key Issue Summary:
(a) Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act provides that an application for relief from unfair dismissal, etc. must be filed within three months from the date on which the unfair dismissal, etc. occurred.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming unfair dismissal. The application was dismissed on the ground that the filing period had expired. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission determined the actual date of dismissal based on materials such as an audio recording of the conversation at the time of dismissal submitted by the worker, and then examined whether the three‑month exclusion period under Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act had elapsed.
The issue in this case was whether the three‑month exclusion period for filing an application for relief from unfair dismissal had expired “where the date of dismissal alleged by the worker differed from the actual date of dismissal.”
The panel held that, in light of the fact that the creation date of the audio file recording the conversation at the time of dismissal submitted by the worker was confirmed as 8 September 2025, and that the day of the conversation was referred to as “Monday” in the recording while 10 September 2025 was in fact a Wednesday, it was reasonable to regard the actual date of dismissal as 8 September 2025, contrary to the worker’s assertion.
Given that the actual date of dismissal was thus 8 September 2025, the worker’s application for relief filed on 10 December 2025 was deemed to have been filed after the lapse of three months from the date on which the unfair dismissal occurred. The Commission therefore held that the right to apply for relief had already been extinguished and dismissed the application as inadmissible.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was how to determine the “date on which the dismissal occurred,” which serves as the starting point for the three‑month exclusion period for filing an application for relief from unfair dismissal under Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and, as a result, whether the application for relief from unfair dismissal filed with the Labor Relations Commission was lawfully filed within that period.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
First, the Commission viewed the three‑month period under Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act as an exclusion period, such that once it has elapsed, the right to apply for relief itself is extinguished and cannot be revived even if there is a justifiable reason.
Second, under the Commission’s Rules, in cases of dismissal, the starting date is, in principle, the date of dismissal stated in the written notice of dismissal received by the worker. However, in cases such as this where there is a dispute over the actual date of dismissal, the Commission must determine the “actual date on which the dismissal occurred” by comprehensively considering objective materials such as the creation date of the audio file and references to the day of the week in the conversation.
Third, since the application for relief was filed after three months had elapsed from the specifically determined actual date of dismissal (8 September 2025), the Commission held that the application must be dismissed for lapse of the exclusion period, without the need to proceed to a substantive determination on the existence of unfair dismissal or the legitimacy of a redundancy dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, once you consider that you have been unfairly dismissed, you must give top priority to managing the three‑month exclusion period for filing an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, regardless of whether the dismissal is substantively justified.
In particular, where dismissal is effected verbally, via text message or messenger, or through termination of coverage under the four major social insurances, you should organize and retain evidence regarding “when the dismissal occurred” (such as the date of notice, recordings, message captures, etc.). You should also bear in mind that materials you submit yourself may lead to an earlier recognition of the actual dismissal date.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to prevent unnecessary disputes over the dismissal date by clearly notifying the grounds and timing of dismissal in writing, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Further, where an application for relief from unfair dismissal appears to have been filed after the lapse of the exclusion period at the Labor Relations Commission stage, you should be prepared to present objective materials such as the written notice of dismissal, personnel records, recordings, and text messages to clearly prove the “date on which the dismissal occurred,” so that the dispute can be resolved at the level of procedural and formal requirements before reaching the substantive merits.
In this type of case, the Commission strictly treats the filing period as an “exclusion period,” which, as a rule, is not restored even if there is a justifiable reason. Accordingly, before contesting whether a dismissal or redundancy is unfair, both parties should carefully confirm compliance with the filing period. Workers and employers alike who wish to utilize the Labor Relations Commission procedures should, through this decision, once again recognize the importance of managing the application period and securing evidence to establish the dismissal date.
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act provides that an application for relief from unfair dismissal, etc. must be filed within three months from the date on which the unfair dismissal, etc. occurred.
(b) The worker claimed to have been dismissed on 10 September 2025 and filed an application for relief on 10 December 2025. However, considering that the creation date of the audio file recording the conversation at the time of dismissal submitted by the worker was confirmed as 8 September 2025, and that the day of the conversation was referred to as Monday in the recording (while 10 September 2025 was a Wednesday), it is reasonable to regard the actual date of dismissal as 8 September 2025.
(c) Therefore, the worker’s application for relief is inadmissible, as it was filed after three months had elapsed from the date on which the unfair dismissal, etc. occurred, at which point the right to apply for relief had already been extinguished.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act provides that an application for relief from unfair dismissal, etc. must be filed within three months from the date on which the unfair dismissal, etc. occurred.
(b) The worker claimed to have been dismissed on 10 September 2025 and filed an application for relief on 10 December 2025. However, considering that the creation date of the audio file recording the conversation at the time of dismissal submitted by the worker was confirmed as 8 September 2025, and that the day of the conversation was referred to as Monday in the recording (while 10 September 2025 was a Wednesday), it is reasonable to regard the actual date of dismissal as 8 September 2025.
(c) Therefore, the worker’s application for relief is inadmissible, as it was filed after three months had elapsed from the date on which the unfair dismissal, etc. occurred, at which point the right to apply for relief had already been extinguished. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Reinstatement to Original Position · Completion of Wage Payment)’ in Unfair Dismissal Cases
- ‘Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ in Unfair Dismissal Cases – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Dismissal
- ‘Existence of Dismissal (Alleged Voluntary Resignation by Agreement)’ in Unfair Dismissal Cases
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, exclusion period (disputed date of dismissal), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Reinstatement to Original Position · Completion of Wage Payment)’ in Unfair Dismissal Cases,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to the exclusion period (disputed date of dismissal) via the “List of Decisions Related to Exclusion Period (Disputed Date of Dismissal).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
