Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Abandonment of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ in Unfair Dismissal Relief Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 242)
- Date2026/02/28 04:04
- Read 210
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed at the stage of the “abandonment of application (non‑appearance at hearing)” issue.
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9259 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.20 · Case result: Dismissed (for procedural reasons)
Key issue summary: The employee in 2025 …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal, but the application was ultimately dismissed because the employee failed to appear at the hearings. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission held two hearings, on December 23, 2025 and January 20, 2026, but the employee failed to appear on both dates, and the case was effectively terminated. The substantive legitimacy of the dismissal itself was not reviewed; instead, the case was closed on the procedural ground that the employee had “abandoned the intention to seek a remedy.”
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether an employee who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, but repeatedly fails to appear on the designated hearing dates and does not respond to the Commission’s written or telephone contacts, can still be regarded as having the intention to maintain the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings. In other words, the question is whether the case may be dismissed for “loss of application requirements” before entering into a substantive examination on the merits.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee failed to appear at both of the designated hearings (December 23, 2025 and January 20, 2026); that all mail sent by the Commission to notify the employee of the hearing schedule, including two separate notices of hearing dates, was returned; and that the employee did not respond at all to the Commission’s telephone contacts.
Taking these circumstances together, the Commission determined that the employee no longer had any intention to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal through the Commission’s procedures. Accordingly, it found that the case fell under “a situation where the applicant has abandoned the intention to seek a remedy,” as prescribed in Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, and dismissed the application without examining the legitimacy of the dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee files an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal, attendance at the hearing dates and responding to the Commission’s contacts are absolutely essential procedural steps. If, due to a change of address, loss of contact, or similar reasons, the employee does not receive the notices and fails to appear at the hearing, the application itself may be dismissed, and the opportunity for relief may be lost, regardless of whether the dismissal was in fact unfair.
Therefore, when preparing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee should provide the Commission with accurate address and contact information and should frequently check all notices sent by mail, text message, or telephone. If it is unavoidably difficult to attend a scheduled hearing, the employee must take appropriate steps in advance, such as filing an application to change the hearing date.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when an employee files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, it is necessary to closely monitor whether the hearing procedures are actually proceeding or whether the application is being dismissed. If the application is dismissed because the employee repeatedly fails to appear, no determination will be made in that remedy case on whether the dismissal was unfair. In such circumstances, it is advisable to separately organize and preserve internal evidence and HR records in anticipation of the possibility of future disputes on the same issues.
In addition, even where a case is dismissed on procedural grounds, as in this example, the same HR practices may be challenged in future unfair dismissal or redundancy (collective dismissal) cases involving other employees. Employers should therefore conduct a prior review of the substantive justification for dismissal and the legality of the procedures, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to ensure compliance.
2. Disposition
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Considering that the employee failed to appear at the hearings held by this Commission on December 23, 2025 and January 20, 2026; that all mail sent to the employee, including two notices of hearing dates, was returned; and that the employee did not receive or respond to this Commission’s telephone contacts, the Commission determined that the employee had abandoned the intention to seek a remedy as set forth in Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, and therefore dismissed the application for remedy.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Considering that the employee failed to appear at the hearings held by this Commission on December 23, 2025 and January 20, 2026; that all mail sent to the employee, including two notices of hearing dates, was returned; and that the employee did not receive or respond to this Commission’s telephone contacts, the Commission determined that the employee had abandoned the intention to seek a remedy as set forth in Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, and therefore dismissed the application for remedy. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, abandonment of 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Existence of Dismissal (Repeated Recommendations to Resign)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to abandonment of application (non‑appearance at hearing) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Abandonment of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed at the stage of the “abandonment of application (non‑appearance at hearing)” issue.
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9259 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.20 · Case result: Dismissed (for procedural reasons)
Key issue summary: The employee in 2025 …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal, but the application was ultimately dismissed because the employee failed to appear at the hearings. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission held two hearings, on December 23, 2025 and January 20, 2026, but the employee failed to appear on both dates, and the case was effectively terminated. The substantive legitimacy of the dismissal itself was not reviewed; instead, the case was closed on the procedural ground that the employee had “abandoned the intention to seek a remedy.”
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether an employee who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, but repeatedly fails to appear on the designated hearing dates and does not respond to the Commission’s written or telephone contacts, can still be regarded as having the intention to maintain the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings. In other words, the question is whether the case may be dismissed for “loss of application requirements” before entering into a substantive examination on the merits.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee failed to appear at both of the designated hearings (December 23, 2025 and January 20, 2026); that all mail sent by the Commission to notify the employee of the hearing schedule, including two separate notices of hearing dates, was returned; and that the employee did not respond at all to the Commission’s telephone contacts.
Taking these circumstances together, the Commission determined that the employee no longer had any intention to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal through the Commission’s procedures. Accordingly, it found that the case fell under “a situation where the applicant has abandoned the intention to seek a remedy,” as prescribed in Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, and dismissed the application without examining the legitimacy of the dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee files an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal, attendance at the hearing dates and responding to the Commission’s contacts are absolutely essential procedural steps. If, due to a change of address, loss of contact, or similar reasons, the employee does not receive the notices and fails to appear at the hearing, the application itself may be dismissed, and the opportunity for relief may be lost, regardless of whether the dismissal was in fact unfair.
Therefore, when preparing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee should provide the Commission with accurate address and contact information and should frequently check all notices sent by mail, text message, or telephone. If it is unavoidably difficult to attend a scheduled hearing, the employee must take appropriate steps in advance, such as filing an application to change the hearing date.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when an employee files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, it is necessary to closely monitor whether the hearing procedures are actually proceeding or whether the application is being dismissed. If the application is dismissed because the employee repeatedly fails to appear, no determination will be made in that remedy case on whether the dismissal was unfair. In such circumstances, it is advisable to separately organize and preserve internal evidence and HR records in anticipation of the possibility of future disputes on the same issues.
In addition, even where a case is dismissed on procedural grounds, as in this example, the same HR practices may be challenged in future unfair dismissal or redundancy (collective dismissal) cases involving other employees. Employers should therefore conduct a prior review of the substantive justification for dismissal and the legality of the procedures, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to ensure compliance.
2. Disposition
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Considering that the employee failed to appear at the hearings held by this Commission on December 23, 2025 and January 20, 2026; that all mail sent to the employee, including two notices of hearing dates, was returned; and that the employee did not receive or respond to this Commission’s telephone contacts, the Commission determined that the employee had abandoned the intention to seek a remedy as set forth in Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, and therefore dismissed the application for remedy.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Considering that the employee failed to appear at the hearings held by this Commission on December 23, 2025 and January 20, 2026; that all mail sent to the employee, including two notices of hearing dates, was returned; and that the employee did not receive or respond to this Commission’s telephone contacts, the Commission determined that the employee had abandoned the intention to seek a remedy as set forth in Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, and therefore dismissed the application for remedy. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, abandonment of 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Existence of Dismissal (Repeated Recommendations to Resign)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to abandonment of application (non‑appearance at hearing) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Abandonment of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
