Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Automatic Dismissal (Five or More Consecutive Days of Unauthorised Absence)” (Unfair Dismissal 245)
- Date2026/03/01 04:04
- Read 215
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “automatic dismissal (five or more consecutive days of unauthorised absence).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9041 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.20 · Decision: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: While it was acknowledged that the employee was at fault for being absent without leave for five or more consecutive days, the Commission held that such unauthorised absence alone does not fall within the generally accepted category of automatic termination (death, mandatory retirement age, expiry of fixed-term contract); that the company’s rules of employment did not contain any provision on automatic termination; that the employee had not agreed to resign; and that the company had not given prior notice that the situation could be treated as automatic dismissal. Taking these circumstances together, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that the automatic dismissal clause in the employment contract had been satisfied…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the company notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship based on an automatic dismissal clause in the employment contract, citing the employee’s unauthorised absence for five or more consecutive days. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal, and the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered its decision.
In addition to examining whether the dismissal was unfair, the Commission focused on whether an automatic dismissal clause that exists only in the employment contract can function as a legitimate ground for automatic termination.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether it is a lawful dismissal or an unfair dismissal for the company to terminate the employment relationship pursuant solely to an automatic dismissal clause in the employment contract, in circumstances where there was unauthorised absence for five or more consecutive days, but the rules of employment contained no provision on automatic termination and no prior notice was given.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case acknowledged that the employee was at fault for being absent without leave for five or more consecutive days. However, it found that such unauthorised absence alone does not readily fall within the category of automatic termination grounds that, under social norms, are deemed to naturally extinguish the employment relationship, such as death, reaching the mandatory retirement age, or expiry of a fixed-term contract.
It further noted that the company’s rules of employment contained no provisions on automatic termination or automatic dismissal; that the employee had neither agreed to resign nor expressed an intention to resign; and that the company had not clearly informed or notified the employee in advance that “five or more consecutive days of unauthorised absence would result in automatic dismissal.”
In light of all these factors, the Commission held that terminating the employment relationship solely on the basis of a formally worded automatic dismissal clause in the employment contract did not constitute strict automatic termination, but in substance amounted to a dismissal.
The Commission therefore found that this dismissal was carried out without satisfying the substantive just cause and procedural requirements for dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, and ruled that it should properly be regarded as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to clearly understand that even where there has been unauthorised absence, this does not automatically result in “automatic dismissal” or “automatic resignation.”
In particular, if the company has unilaterally notified you of the termination of the employment relationship relying only on the wording of the employment contract—without any corresponding provision in the rules of employment and without any opportunity to obtain assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&—you should consider filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Furthermore, if absence is anticipated due to unavoidable circumstances, you should, in advance, inform the company of the reasons and, where possible, do so in a manner that leaves evidence, such as in writing or via messenger, so that you can later substantiate your explanation in the event of a dispute.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it must be borne in mind that even where unauthorised absence continues for a certain period, the question of whether this can be treated as a “ground for automatic extinction of the employment relationship,” akin to death, mandatory retirement age, or expiry of a fixed-term contract, is assessed very strictly.
If you declare automatic dismissal relying solely on an employment contract clause, without having clearly stipulated grounds for automatic termination or automatic dismissal in the rules of employment, there is a high risk that this will be found to constitute unfair dismissal. Employers are therefore advised to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to revise and organise their rules of employment and to establish systematic disciplinary and dismissal procedures.
In addition, where unauthorised absence becomes an issue, it is safer to respond in line with the legal principles governing “disciplinary dismissal,” by first taking step-by-step measures such as ascertaining the circumstances, urging the employee to return to work, and requesting an explanation, and then, if necessary, proceeding with disciplinary dismissal procedures.
This unfair dismissal decision clearly shows that, just like collective redundancies, even if an employer’s action is an exercise of managerial prerogative, if its form, procedure, and legal basis do not conform to legal principles, it can easily be overturned by the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
While it is acknowledged that the employee was at fault for being absent without leave for five or more consecutive days, such unauthorised absence alone does not fall within the generally accepted category of automatic termination (death, mandatory retirement age, expiry of fixed-term contract). The company’s rules of employment did not stipulate any provision on automatic termination; the employee did not agree to resign; and the company did not give prior notice that the situation could be treated as automatic dismissal.
Taking all of these circumstances together, it is difficult to conclude that the conditions of the automatic dismissal clause in the employment contract were satisfied, and it is therefore appropriate to regard this as an unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
While it is acknowledged that the employee was at fault for being absent without leave for five or more consecutive days, such unauthorised absence alone does not fall within the generally accepted category of automatic termination (death, mandatory retirement age, expiry of fixed-term contract). The company’s rules of employment did not stipulate any provision on automatic termination; the employee did not agree to resign; and the company did not give prior notice that the situation could be treated as automatic dismissal.
Taking all of these circumstances together, it is difficult to conclude that the conditions of the automatic dismissal clause in the employment contract were satisfied, and it is therefore appropriate to regard this as an unfair dismissal. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissal of Application
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, automatic dismissal (five or more consecutive days of unauthorised absence), unauthorised absence, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Disciplinary Sanction Level (Workplace Assault),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to automatic dismissal (five or more consecutive days of unauthorised absence) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Automatic Dismissal (Five or More Consecutive Days of Unauthorised Absence).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “automatic dismissal (five or more consecutive days of unauthorised absence).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9041 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.20 · Decision: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues: While it was acknowledged that the employee was at fault for being absent without leave for five or more consecutive days, the Commission held that such unauthorised absence alone does not fall within the generally accepted category of automatic termination (death, mandatory retirement age, expiry of fixed-term contract); that the company’s rules of employment did not contain any provision on automatic termination; that the employee had not agreed to resign; and that the company had not given prior notice that the situation could be treated as automatic dismissal. Taking these circumstances together, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that the automatic dismissal clause in the employment contract had been satisfied…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the company notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship based on an automatic dismissal clause in the employment contract, citing the employee’s unauthorised absence for five or more consecutive days. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal, and the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered its decision.
In addition to examining whether the dismissal was unfair, the Commission focused on whether an automatic dismissal clause that exists only in the employment contract can function as a legitimate ground for automatic termination.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether it is a lawful dismissal or an unfair dismissal for the company to terminate the employment relationship pursuant solely to an automatic dismissal clause in the employment contract, in circumstances where there was unauthorised absence for five or more consecutive days, but the rules of employment contained no provision on automatic termination and no prior notice was given.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case acknowledged that the employee was at fault for being absent without leave for five or more consecutive days. However, it found that such unauthorised absence alone does not readily fall within the category of automatic termination grounds that, under social norms, are deemed to naturally extinguish the employment relationship, such as death, reaching the mandatory retirement age, or expiry of a fixed-term contract.
It further noted that the company’s rules of employment contained no provisions on automatic termination or automatic dismissal; that the employee had neither agreed to resign nor expressed an intention to resign; and that the company had not clearly informed or notified the employee in advance that “five or more consecutive days of unauthorised absence would result in automatic dismissal.”
In light of all these factors, the Commission held that terminating the employment relationship solely on the basis of a formally worded automatic dismissal clause in the employment contract did not constitute strict automatic termination, but in substance amounted to a dismissal.
The Commission therefore found that this dismissal was carried out without satisfying the substantive just cause and procedural requirements for dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, and ruled that it should properly be regarded as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to clearly understand that even where there has been unauthorised absence, this does not automatically result in “automatic dismissal” or “automatic resignation.”
In particular, if the company has unilaterally notified you of the termination of the employment relationship relying only on the wording of the employment contract—without any corresponding provision in the rules of employment and without any opportunity to obtain assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&—you should consider filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Furthermore, if absence is anticipated due to unavoidable circumstances, you should, in advance, inform the company of the reasons and, where possible, do so in a manner that leaves evidence, such as in writing or via messenger, so that you can later substantiate your explanation in the event of a dispute.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it must be borne in mind that even where unauthorised absence continues for a certain period, the question of whether this can be treated as a “ground for automatic extinction of the employment relationship,” akin to death, mandatory retirement age, or expiry of a fixed-term contract, is assessed very strictly.
If you declare automatic dismissal relying solely on an employment contract clause, without having clearly stipulated grounds for automatic termination or automatic dismissal in the rules of employment, there is a high risk that this will be found to constitute unfair dismissal. Employers are therefore advised to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to revise and organise their rules of employment and to establish systematic disciplinary and dismissal procedures.
In addition, where unauthorised absence becomes an issue, it is safer to respond in line with the legal principles governing “disciplinary dismissal,” by first taking step-by-step measures such as ascertaining the circumstances, urging the employee to return to work, and requesting an explanation, and then, if necessary, proceeding with disciplinary dismissal procedures.
This unfair dismissal decision clearly shows that, just like collective redundancies, even if an employer’s action is an exercise of managerial prerogative, if its form, procedure, and legal basis do not conform to legal principles, it can easily be overturned by the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
While it is acknowledged that the employee was at fault for being absent without leave for five or more consecutive days, such unauthorised absence alone does not fall within the generally accepted category of automatic termination (death, mandatory retirement age, expiry of fixed-term contract). The company’s rules of employment did not stipulate any provision on automatic termination; the employee did not agree to resign; and the company did not give prior notice that the situation could be treated as automatic dismissal.
Taking all of these circumstances together, it is difficult to conclude that the conditions of the automatic dismissal clause in the employment contract were satisfied, and it is therefore appropriate to regard this as an unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
While it is acknowledged that the employee was at fault for being absent without leave for five or more consecutive days, such unauthorised absence alone does not fall within the generally accepted category of automatic termination (death, mandatory retirement age, expiry of fixed-term contract). The company’s rules of employment did not stipulate any provision on automatic termination; the employee did not agree to resign; and the company did not give prior notice that the situation could be treated as automatic dismissal.
Taking all of these circumstances together, it is difficult to conclude that the conditions of the automatic dismissal clause in the employment contract were satisfied, and it is therefore appropriate to regard this as an unfair dismissal. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissal of Application
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, automatic dismissal (five or more consecutive days of unauthorised absence), unauthorised absence, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Disciplinary Sanction Level (Workplace Assault),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to automatic dismissal (five or more consecutive days of unauthorised absence) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Automatic Dismissal (Five or More Consecutive Days of Unauthorised Absence).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
