Corporate trends / Performance record
Preclusion Period (Date of Notification of Personnel Order) in Unfair Dismissal Relief Cases (Unfair Dismissal 270)
- Date2026/03/09 04:08
- Read 195
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld at the rehearing stage on the issue of the “preclusion period (date of notification of the personnel order).”
Decision Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1479 ○ ○ ○ Application for Rehearing for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.14 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issue: The starting date for calculating the preclusion period for this relief application was held to be the date on which the worker in this case was notified of the personnel order in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the worker regarded a personnel order as an unfair personnel disadvantage and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The timing of the application became the central point of dispute at the rehearing stage. The Central Labor Relations Commission focused solely on whether the preclusion period had expired, based on the date of notification of the personnel order and the date of the relief application to the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is: “When a worker regards a personnel order as an unfair dismissal or other personnel disadvantage and applies to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, from what point should the preclusion period for filing the relief application be calculated, and whether an application filed after that period has elapsed can be allowed.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the starting date for calculating the preclusion period for this relief application was March 10, 2025, when the worker in this case was notified of the personnel order. The worker filed the initial relief application with the Regional Labor Relations Commission on June 12, 2025, more than three months after that notification date. Taking into account the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence that the period for filing an application for relief from unfair dismissal, etc. is a “three‑month preclusion period” prescribed by law for prompt and simple administrative relief, and that once this period has elapsed, the right to seek administrative relief is extinguished,
the panel held that, even before examining whether there was substantive room to contest the unfairness of the dismissal itself, the relief application must be deemed procedurally defective due to the expiration of the preclusion period.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
If a worker objects to a personnel disadvantage such as redundancy dismissal, transfer, disciplinary action, or other personnel order, they must file an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission within three months from the date of notification (or from the dismissal date stated in the dismissal notice). Because this three‑month period is a “preclusion period,” once it is missed—even due to simple mistake, personal circumstances, or delays in seeking advice—the opportunity to properly contest the unfairness of the dismissal itself may be lost entirely. This must be kept firmly in mind.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when implementing a dismissal or other personnel disadvantage, it is important to notify the employee in writing so that the timing and content of the notification are clearly recorded, and to keep a clear record of the notification date. Since the question of whether the preclusion period has elapsed can become a key issue in Labor Relations Commission proceedings, employers should establish an internal HR and labor management system that systematically manages the date of notification of personnel orders and subsequent developments, so that objective materials can be produced in the event of a dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The starting date for calculating the preclusion period for this relief application was March 10, 2025, when the worker in this case was notified of the personnel order. Because the worker filed this relief application with the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission on June 12, 2025, which was more than three months after the notification date, it was determined that the preclusion period for filing the relief application had expired.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The starting date for calculating the preclusion period for this relief application was March 10, 2025, when the worker in this case was notified of the personnel order. Because the worker filed this relief application with the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission on June 12, 2025, more than three months after the notification date, it was determined that the preclusion period for filing the relief application had expired. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Formation of Employment Offer (Notification by Recruitment Agency)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks Made by Telephone)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, preclusion period (date of notification of personnel order), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Formation of Employment Offer (Notification by Recruitment Agency),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the preclusion period (date of notification of personnel order) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Preclusion Period (Date of Notification of Personnel Order).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld at the rehearing stage on the issue of the “preclusion period (date of notification of the personnel order).”
Decision Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1479 ○ ○ ○ Application for Rehearing for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.14 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issue: The starting date for calculating the preclusion period for this relief application was held to be the date on which the worker in this case was notified of the personnel order in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the worker regarded a personnel order as an unfair personnel disadvantage and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The timing of the application became the central point of dispute at the rehearing stage. The Central Labor Relations Commission focused solely on whether the preclusion period had expired, based on the date of notification of the personnel order and the date of the relief application to the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is: “When a worker regards a personnel order as an unfair dismissal or other personnel disadvantage and applies to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, from what point should the preclusion period for filing the relief application be calculated, and whether an application filed after that period has elapsed can be allowed.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the starting date for calculating the preclusion period for this relief application was March 10, 2025, when the worker in this case was notified of the personnel order. The worker filed the initial relief application with the Regional Labor Relations Commission on June 12, 2025, more than three months after that notification date. Taking into account the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence that the period for filing an application for relief from unfair dismissal, etc. is a “three‑month preclusion period” prescribed by law for prompt and simple administrative relief, and that once this period has elapsed, the right to seek administrative relief is extinguished,
the panel held that, even before examining whether there was substantive room to contest the unfairness of the dismissal itself, the relief application must be deemed procedurally defective due to the expiration of the preclusion period.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
If a worker objects to a personnel disadvantage such as redundancy dismissal, transfer, disciplinary action, or other personnel order, they must file an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission within three months from the date of notification (or from the dismissal date stated in the dismissal notice). Because this three‑month period is a “preclusion period,” once it is missed—even due to simple mistake, personal circumstances, or delays in seeking advice—the opportunity to properly contest the unfairness of the dismissal itself may be lost entirely. This must be kept firmly in mind.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when implementing a dismissal or other personnel disadvantage, it is important to notify the employee in writing so that the timing and content of the notification are clearly recorded, and to keep a clear record of the notification date. Since the question of whether the preclusion period has elapsed can become a key issue in Labor Relations Commission proceedings, employers should establish an internal HR and labor management system that systematically manages the date of notification of personnel orders and subsequent developments, so that objective materials can be produced in the event of a dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The starting date for calculating the preclusion period for this relief application was March 10, 2025, when the worker in this case was notified of the personnel order. Because the worker filed this relief application with the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission on June 12, 2025, which was more than three months after the notification date, it was determined that the preclusion period for filing the relief application had expired.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The starting date for calculating the preclusion period for this relief application was March 10, 2025, when the worker in this case was notified of the personnel order. Because the worker filed this relief application with the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission on June 12, 2025, more than three months after the notification date, it was determined that the preclusion period for filing the relief application had expired. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Formation of Employment Offer (Notification by Recruitment Agency)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks Made by Telephone)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, preclusion period (date of notification of personnel order), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Formation of Employment Offer (Notification by Recruitment Agency),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the preclusion period (date of notification of personnel order) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Preclusion Period (Date of Notification of Personnel Order).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
