Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Exclusion Period (Dismissal After Reconsideration Request)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 285)
- Date2026/03/15 04:08
- Read 233
This case ended with a procedural dismissal on the issue of the “exclusion period (dismissal after reconsideration request).”
[Case Information]
This case was concluded by a procedural dismissal on the issue of the “exclusion period (dismissal after reconsideration request).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9566 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026.01.13 · Case Type: Dismissal
Key issues in summary: (i) The employee received notice of the initial disciplinary disposition on 4 August 2025 and filed for relief only on 13 November 2025, more than three months later; (ii) the employee filed a reconsideration request with the employer, but the Reconsideration Personnel Committee decided on 11 September 2025 to “uphold the initial decision,” and the company’s internal regulations state that “a reconsideration request does not affect the enforcement of the original disciplinary disposition.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee contested the company’s disciplinary dismissal and applied for relief to the Labor Relations Commission, but the timing of the application became an issue, and the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the case. The employee filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Labor Relations Commission after going through the company’s internal reconsideration procedure following notice of the initial disciplinary disposition, but the Commission held that the application period had expired. The case focuses on the relationship between the exclusion period for filing an unfair dismissal relief application and the company’s internal reconsideration procedure.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “where an employee files for reconsideration with the company’s Personnel Committee, the three‑month exclusion period for filing an unfair dismissal relief application is calculated from the date of notice of the original disciplinary disposition or from the date of the reconsideration decision.” In other words, the question is whether the period for filing an unfair dismissal relief application with the Labor Relations Commission is extended or recommences when the employer’s internal reconsideration procedure is pending or a reconsideration decision has been rendered.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the employee received notice of the initial disciplinary disposition on 4 August 2025 but did not file for relief with the Labor Relations Commission until 13 November 2025, more than three months later; that the company’s Reconsideration Personnel Committee decided on 11 September 2025 to “uphold the initial decision”; and that the company’s internal regulations expressly state that “a reconsideration request does not affect the enforcement of the original disciplinary disposition.”
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the dismissal in this case must be regarded as having been contested after the exclusion period prescribed in Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act had expired.
The Labor Relations Commission applied existing precedents and commentaries which regard the period for filing for relief in unfair dismissal cases as an exclusion period corresponding to a “period for seeking relief,” and hold that once this period has passed, the right to administrative relief through the Commission is extinguished. The mere fact that a reconsideration procedure is pending or that a reconsideration decision has been rendered does not extend or restart the exclusion period, and unless the internal regulations provide that reconsideration suspends the enforcement of the original disposition, the starting point for calculating the period for filing for relief is the date of notice of the original disposition. Accordingly, the Commission found that the application for relief was procedurally defective and had to be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
The three‑month period for filing an unfair dismissal relief application under Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act is an “exclusion period,” and once it has passed, the right to seek relief through the Labor Relations Commission is extinguished. Even if you file an objection or a reconsideration request with the company’s Personnel Committee, if the internal regulations or collective agreement do not provide that reconsideration suspends the effect of the original disposition, the period for filing for relief with the Labor Relations Commission continues to run from the date of the original dismissal notice.
Therefore, if you have been unfairly dismissed, you should calculate the three‑month exclusion period for filing with the Labor Relations Commission separately, even while pursuing internal company procedures, and in any event file your application for relief with the Commission within three months from the date of the dismissal notice. You must keep in mind that if you wait for the result of the internal reconsideration and miss the exclusion period, your application may be dismissed, and you may be unable to obtain administrative relief even if the dismissal is unfair.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, when imposing disciplinary measures or dismissal, it is advisable to have an accurate understanding of the unfair dismissal relief procedures and exclusion period structure under the Labor Standards Act, and to clearly state in the notice the date of dismissal, date of notice, procedures for objection/reconsideration, and the possibility of filing for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. In particular, if the company has an internal reconsideration system, the regulations should clearly specify whether reconsideration suspends the effect of the original disposition, the legal effect of the reconsideration decision, and the relationship between the reconsideration procedure and external relief procedures (Labor Relations Commission, litigation, etc.) in order to reduce unnecessary disputes.
In addition, if an employee files for relief after the exclusion period has expired, it is practically important to establish a procedural defense strategy by systematically organizing and asserting before the Labor Relations Commission that the exclusion period has lapsed, prior to disputing the merits. When operating an internal reconsideration system, the company should also explicitly provide employees with guidance on the exclusion period to prevent disputes arising from “misunderstanding of time limits.”
To prevail in this type of case, it is crucial to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles and precedents on exclusion periods and to align the company’s regulations and the actual operation of reconsideration procedures with those principles.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the following: (i) the employee received notice of the initial disciplinary disposition on 4 August 2025 and filed for relief only on 13 November 2025, more than three months later; (ii) the employee filed a reconsideration request with the employer, but the Reconsideration Personnel Committee decided on 11 September 2025 to “uphold the initial decision”; and (iii) the company’s internal regulations expressly state that “a reconsideration request does not affect the enforcement of the original disciplinary disposition,” the starting point for calculating the period for filing for relief is 4 August 2025, the date on which the original disposition was notified, not the date of the reconsideration decision. As this exceeds the three‑month application period set forth in Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act, the employee’s right to seek relief through the Labor Relations Commission is deemed to have been extinguished.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the following: (i) the employee received notice of the initial disciplinary disposition on 4 August 2025 and filed for relief only on 13 November 2025, more than three months later; (ii) the employee filed a reconsideration request with the employer, but the Reconsideration Personnel Committee decided on 11 September 2025 to “uphold the initial decision”; and (iii) the company’s internal regulations expressly state that “a reconsideration request does not affect the enforcement of the original disciplinary disposition,” the starting point for calculating the period for filing for relief is 4 August 2025, the date on which the original disposition was notified, not the date of the reconsideration decision. As this exceeds the three‑month application period set forth in Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act, the employee’s right to seek relief through the Labor Relations Commission is deemed to have been extinguished. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision Date: – Case Type: Dismissal
- “‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision Date: – Case Type: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, exclusion period (dismissal after reconsideration request), disciplinary dismissal, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Disciplinary Severity (14 Days of Absence Out of 18 Days)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to the exclusion period (dismissal after reconsideration request) at “List of Decisions Related to Exclusion Period (Dismissal After Reconsideration Request).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case was concluded by a procedural dismissal on the issue of the “exclusion period (dismissal after reconsideration request).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9566 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026.01.13 · Case Type: Dismissal
Key issues in summary: (i) The employee received notice of the initial disciplinary disposition on 4 August 2025 and filed for relief only on 13 November 2025, more than three months later; (ii) the employee filed a reconsideration request with the employer, but the Reconsideration Personnel Committee decided on 11 September 2025 to “uphold the initial decision,” and the company’s internal regulations state that “a reconsideration request does not affect the enforcement of the original disciplinary disposition.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee contested the company’s disciplinary dismissal and applied for relief to the Labor Relations Commission, but the timing of the application became an issue, and the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the case. The employee filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Labor Relations Commission after going through the company’s internal reconsideration procedure following notice of the initial disciplinary disposition, but the Commission held that the application period had expired. The case focuses on the relationship between the exclusion period for filing an unfair dismissal relief application and the company’s internal reconsideration procedure.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “where an employee files for reconsideration with the company’s Personnel Committee, the three‑month exclusion period for filing an unfair dismissal relief application is calculated from the date of notice of the original disciplinary disposition or from the date of the reconsideration decision.” In other words, the question is whether the period for filing an unfair dismissal relief application with the Labor Relations Commission is extended or recommences when the employer’s internal reconsideration procedure is pending or a reconsideration decision has been rendered.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the employee received notice of the initial disciplinary disposition on 4 August 2025 but did not file for relief with the Labor Relations Commission until 13 November 2025, more than three months later; that the company’s Reconsideration Personnel Committee decided on 11 September 2025 to “uphold the initial decision”; and that the company’s internal regulations expressly state that “a reconsideration request does not affect the enforcement of the original disciplinary disposition.”
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the dismissal in this case must be regarded as having been contested after the exclusion period prescribed in Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act had expired.
The Labor Relations Commission applied existing precedents and commentaries which regard the period for filing for relief in unfair dismissal cases as an exclusion period corresponding to a “period for seeking relief,” and hold that once this period has passed, the right to administrative relief through the Commission is extinguished. The mere fact that a reconsideration procedure is pending or that a reconsideration decision has been rendered does not extend or restart the exclusion period, and unless the internal regulations provide that reconsideration suspends the enforcement of the original disposition, the starting point for calculating the period for filing for relief is the date of notice of the original disposition. Accordingly, the Commission found that the application for relief was procedurally defective and had to be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
The three‑month period for filing an unfair dismissal relief application under Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act is an “exclusion period,” and once it has passed, the right to seek relief through the Labor Relations Commission is extinguished. Even if you file an objection or a reconsideration request with the company’s Personnel Committee, if the internal regulations or collective agreement do not provide that reconsideration suspends the effect of the original disposition, the period for filing for relief with the Labor Relations Commission continues to run from the date of the original dismissal notice.
Therefore, if you have been unfairly dismissed, you should calculate the three‑month exclusion period for filing with the Labor Relations Commission separately, even while pursuing internal company procedures, and in any event file your application for relief with the Commission within three months from the date of the dismissal notice. You must keep in mind that if you wait for the result of the internal reconsideration and miss the exclusion period, your application may be dismissed, and you may be unable to obtain administrative relief even if the dismissal is unfair.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, when imposing disciplinary measures or dismissal, it is advisable to have an accurate understanding of the unfair dismissal relief procedures and exclusion period structure under the Labor Standards Act, and to clearly state in the notice the date of dismissal, date of notice, procedures for objection/reconsideration, and the possibility of filing for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. In particular, if the company has an internal reconsideration system, the regulations should clearly specify whether reconsideration suspends the effect of the original disposition, the legal effect of the reconsideration decision, and the relationship between the reconsideration procedure and external relief procedures (Labor Relations Commission, litigation, etc.) in order to reduce unnecessary disputes.
In addition, if an employee files for relief after the exclusion period has expired, it is practically important to establish a procedural defense strategy by systematically organizing and asserting before the Labor Relations Commission that the exclusion period has lapsed, prior to disputing the merits. When operating an internal reconsideration system, the company should also explicitly provide employees with guidance on the exclusion period to prevent disputes arising from “misunderstanding of time limits.”
To prevail in this type of case, it is crucial to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles and precedents on exclusion periods and to align the company’s regulations and the actual operation of reconsideration procedures with those principles.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the following: (i) the employee received notice of the initial disciplinary disposition on 4 August 2025 and filed for relief only on 13 November 2025, more than three months later; (ii) the employee filed a reconsideration request with the employer, but the Reconsideration Personnel Committee decided on 11 September 2025 to “uphold the initial decision”; and (iii) the company’s internal regulations expressly state that “a reconsideration request does not affect the enforcement of the original disciplinary disposition,” the starting point for calculating the period for filing for relief is 4 August 2025, the date on which the original disposition was notified, not the date of the reconsideration decision. As this exceeds the three‑month application period set forth in Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act, the employee’s right to seek relief through the Labor Relations Commission is deemed to have been extinguished.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the following: (i) the employee received notice of the initial disciplinary disposition on 4 August 2025 and filed for relief only on 13 November 2025, more than three months later; (ii) the employee filed a reconsideration request with the employer, but the Reconsideration Personnel Committee decided on 11 September 2025 to “uphold the initial decision”; and (iii) the company’s internal regulations expressly state that “a reconsideration request does not affect the enforcement of the original disciplinary disposition,” the starting point for calculating the period for filing for relief is 4 August 2025, the date on which the original disposition was notified, not the date of the reconsideration decision. As this exceeds the three‑month application period set forth in Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act, the employee’s right to seek relief through the Labor Relations Commission is deemed to have been extinguished. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision Date: – Case Type: Dismissal
- “‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision Date: – Case Type: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, exclusion period (dismissal after reconsideration request), disciplinary dismissal, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Disciplinary Severity (14 Days of Absence Out of 18 Days)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to the exclusion period (dismissal after reconsideration request) at “List of Decisions Related to Exclusion Period (Dismissal After Reconsideration Request).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
