Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Eligibility as Object of Relief (Request for Order to Return as Expatriate Employee)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 258)
- Date2026/03/05 04:09
- Read 242
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (dismissal of application) on the issue of “eligibility as object of relief (request for order to return as expatriate employee).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal 9498 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
January 16, 2026 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee did not apply for relief against any disadvantageous disposition imposed by the employer, but instead petitioned the Labor Relations Commission to impose on the employer an obligation to order the employee’s return as an expatriate employee. However, under the relevant case law and statutes, the object of a labor commission’s remedial order is limited to disadvantageous dispositions imposed as sanctions on employees. Therefore, an order requiring the employer to accept the employee’s demands cannot be regarded as an object of a remedial order. /
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working overseas as an expatriate did not challenge the employer’s “unfair dismissal” or any disciplinary disposition itself. Instead, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission, requesting that it order the employer to issue an instruction for the employee’s return as an expatriate employee. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the content of the employee’s application fell within the scope of the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act.
The employee did not ask for the cancellation of any disadvantageous personnel disposition by the employer, but rather argued that the Commission should impose on the employer an obligation to accept the employee’s demand and take a specific personnel measure.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “a request by an employee that the employer take a specific personnel measure (an order to return as an expatriate employee) constitutes an ‘object of an unfair dismissal, etc. remedial order by the Labor Relations Commission.’”
In other words, the core issue was whether, in the absence of any “sanction-type disadvantageous disposition by the employer,” such as dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, wage reduction, or other punishment, a mere application seeking the imposition of a personnel-related obligation on the employer could properly be treated as an “application for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc.” under Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that the object of a remedial order by the Labor Relations Commission is limited, under Articles 23 and 28 of the Labor Standards Act, to disadvantageous dispositions imposed as sanctions on employees by the employer—namely dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, wage reduction, and other punishment. Relevant case law also confines “other punishment” to disadvantageous dispositions of a disciplinary nature, and the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provide that an application shall be dismissed where its content does not fall within the scope of such remedial orders.
Accordingly, the employee’s application seeking to impose on the employer an obligation to order the employee’s return as an expatriate employee was not a request for “cancellation or correction of a disadvantageous disposition,” but rather a request to compel a personnel order in the sense of “requiring acceptance of the employee’s demands.” The panel therefore found that it did not fall within the scope of the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial orders.
The panel held that, in this case, either no dismissal disposition existed, or at least it was difficult to view the matter as one involving a disadvantageous disposition constituting “unfair dismissal, etc.” that the Labor Relations Commission could adjudicate. On this basis, the employee’s application for relief was dismissed for lack of eligibility as an object of relief.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees must clearly understand that the scope of matters for which an application may be filed with the Labor Relations Commission is limited to “unfair dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, wage reduction, and other punishment.” Where the employer has not taken any sanction-type disadvantageous disposition such as dismissal or discipline, but is simply refusing to accede to the employee’s wishes, the appropriate avenue is not the Labor Relations Commission but other procedures such as civil litigation.
In particular, when asserting rights in connection with personnel or managerial measures such as overseas expatriate assignments, transfers or reassignment, and redundancy dismissals, employees should first distinguish whether the measure constitutes a “disciplinary disadvantageous disposition” or merely a personnel/operational decision, and then select an appropriate remedy accordingly.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to recognize that the scope of relief that employees may seek from the Labor Relations Commission is limited, and that not every personnel dispute will immediately escalate into an unfair dismissal case. However, where a personnel measure has a disciplinary character or entails economic or psychological disadvantage, there is a risk that it may be evaluated as “other punishment.” In such cases, the grounds and procedures should be clearly organized and documented.
Employers should also review and refine internal regulations and contracts concerning the deployment, return, and reassignment of overseas expatriate employees, and in the event of a dispute, examine in advance whether the matter is likely to be contested through the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial procedures or through the ordinary courts.
To prevail in, or at least minimize, disputes of this type, it is essential to understand accurately the structure of the Labor Relations Commission’s remedy system and the legal principles governing “eligibility as an object of relief,” and to design personnel and disciplinary practices accordingly.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee did not apply for relief from any disadvantageous disposition imposed by the employer, but instead petitioned the Labor Relations Commission to impose on the employer an obligation to order the employee’s return as an expatriate employee. However, under the relevant case law and statutes, the object of a remedial order by the Labor Relations Commission is limited to disadvantageous dispositions imposed as sanctions on employees. Therefore, a request that the employer accept the employee’s demands cannot be regarded as an object of a remedial order.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee did not apply for relief from any disadvantageous disposition imposed by the employer, but instead petitioned the Labor Relations Commission to impose on the employer an obligation to order the employee’s return as an expatriate employee. However, under the relevant case law and statutes, the object of a remedial order by the Labor Relations Commission is limited to disadvantageous dispositions imposed as sanctions on employees. Therefore, a request that the employer accept the employee’s demands cannot be regarded as an object of a remedial order. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Negligent Supervision (Long-Term Neglect of Subordinate’s Misconduct)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, eligibility as object of relief (request for order to return as expatriate employee), 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, “‘Negligent Supervision (Long-Term Neglect of Subordinate’s Misconduct)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to eligibility as object of relief (request for order to return as expatriate employee) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Eligibility as Object of Relief (Request for Order to Return as Expatriate Employee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (dismissal of application) on the issue of “eligibility as object of relief (request for order to return as expatriate employee).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal 9498 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
January 16, 2026 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee did not apply for relief against any disadvantageous disposition imposed by the employer, but instead petitioned the Labor Relations Commission to impose on the employer an obligation to order the employee’s return as an expatriate employee. However, under the relevant case law and statutes, the object of a labor commission’s remedial order is limited to disadvantageous dispositions imposed as sanctions on employees. Therefore, an order requiring the employer to accept the employee’s demands cannot be regarded as an object of a remedial order. /
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working overseas as an expatriate did not challenge the employer’s “unfair dismissal” or any disciplinary disposition itself. Instead, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission, requesting that it order the employer to issue an instruction for the employee’s return as an expatriate employee. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the content of the employee’s application fell within the scope of the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act.
The employee did not ask for the cancellation of any disadvantageous personnel disposition by the employer, but rather argued that the Commission should impose on the employer an obligation to accept the employee’s demand and take a specific personnel measure.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “a request by an employee that the employer take a specific personnel measure (an order to return as an expatriate employee) constitutes an ‘object of an unfair dismissal, etc. remedial order by the Labor Relations Commission.’”
In other words, the core issue was whether, in the absence of any “sanction-type disadvantageous disposition by the employer,” such as dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, wage reduction, or other punishment, a mere application seeking the imposition of a personnel-related obligation on the employer could properly be treated as an “application for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc.” under Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that the object of a remedial order by the Labor Relations Commission is limited, under Articles 23 and 28 of the Labor Standards Act, to disadvantageous dispositions imposed as sanctions on employees by the employer—namely dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, wage reduction, and other punishment. Relevant case law also confines “other punishment” to disadvantageous dispositions of a disciplinary nature, and the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provide that an application shall be dismissed where its content does not fall within the scope of such remedial orders.
Accordingly, the employee’s application seeking to impose on the employer an obligation to order the employee’s return as an expatriate employee was not a request for “cancellation or correction of a disadvantageous disposition,” but rather a request to compel a personnel order in the sense of “requiring acceptance of the employee’s demands.” The panel therefore found that it did not fall within the scope of the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial orders.
The panel held that, in this case, either no dismissal disposition existed, or at least it was difficult to view the matter as one involving a disadvantageous disposition constituting “unfair dismissal, etc.” that the Labor Relations Commission could adjudicate. On this basis, the employee’s application for relief was dismissed for lack of eligibility as an object of relief.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees must clearly understand that the scope of matters for which an application may be filed with the Labor Relations Commission is limited to “unfair dismissal, suspension from duty, disciplinary suspension, transfer, wage reduction, and other punishment.” Where the employer has not taken any sanction-type disadvantageous disposition such as dismissal or discipline, but is simply refusing to accede to the employee’s wishes, the appropriate avenue is not the Labor Relations Commission but other procedures such as civil litigation.
In particular, when asserting rights in connection with personnel or managerial measures such as overseas expatriate assignments, transfers or reassignment, and redundancy dismissals, employees should first distinguish whether the measure constitutes a “disciplinary disadvantageous disposition” or merely a personnel/operational decision, and then select an appropriate remedy accordingly.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to recognize that the scope of relief that employees may seek from the Labor Relations Commission is limited, and that not every personnel dispute will immediately escalate into an unfair dismissal case. However, where a personnel measure has a disciplinary character or entails economic or psychological disadvantage, there is a risk that it may be evaluated as “other punishment.” In such cases, the grounds and procedures should be clearly organized and documented.
Employers should also review and refine internal regulations and contracts concerning the deployment, return, and reassignment of overseas expatriate employees, and in the event of a dispute, examine in advance whether the matter is likely to be contested through the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial procedures or through the ordinary courts.
To prevail in, or at least minimize, disputes of this type, it is essential to understand accurately the structure of the Labor Relations Commission’s remedy system and the legal principles governing “eligibility as an object of relief,” and to design personnel and disciplinary practices accordingly.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee did not apply for relief from any disadvantageous disposition imposed by the employer, but instead petitioned the Labor Relations Commission to impose on the employer an obligation to order the employee’s return as an expatriate employee. However, under the relevant case law and statutes, the object of a remedial order by the Labor Relations Commission is limited to disadvantageous dispositions imposed as sanctions on employees. Therefore, a request that the employer accept the employee’s demands cannot be regarded as an object of a remedial order.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee did not apply for relief from any disadvantageous disposition imposed by the employer, but instead petitioned the Labor Relations Commission to impose on the employer an obligation to order the employee’s return as an expatriate employee. However, under the relevant case law and statutes, the object of a remedial order by the Labor Relations Commission is limited to disadvantageous dispositions imposed as sanctions on employees. Therefore, a request that the employer accept the employee’s demands cannot be regarded as an object of a remedial order. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Negligent Supervision (Long-Term Neglect of Subordinate’s Misconduct)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, eligibility as object of relief (request for order to return as expatriate employee), 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, “‘Negligent Supervision (Long-Term Neglect of Subordinate’s Misconduct)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to eligibility as object of relief (request for order to return as expatriate employee) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Eligibility as Object of Relief (Request for Order to Return as Expatriate Employee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
