Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Waiver of Remedy Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 415)
- Date2026/04/29 04:13
- Read 147
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “waiver of remedy application (non-appearance at hearing).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae40 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Remedy Application
2026.04.16 · Case Number: Dismissal
Summary of Key Issues: Both the appearance request document and the hearing schedule notice were returned marked “closed, no one at home,” indicating that the employee did not receive case-related mail at his/her address; despite multiple attempts by the case officer to contact the employee by phone, text message, and email, the employee did not respond at all and did not comply with requests to appear for fact-finding, suggesting that the employee had no intention of participating in the case or the hearing procedure; the employee checked the hearing schedule but did not attend the hearing…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for alleged unfair dismissal, but the application was dismissed because the employee failed to respond to requests for contact and appearance throughout the investigation and hearing procedures. The Labor Relations Commission found that both the appearance request document and the hearing schedule notice were returned marked “closed, no one at home,” and that the employee did not respond at all to phone calls, text messages, or emails. On this basis, the Commission determined that the employee had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the remedy application.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether “in an unfair dismissal remedy application, where the employee does not respond at all to the investigation and hearing procedures and fails to appear at the hearing, the employee still retains a legally protectable interest in the remedy.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that both the appearance request document and the hearing schedule notice were returned marked “closed, no one at home,” that the employee did not respond at all despite multiple attempts by the case officer to contact the employee by phone, text message, and email, and that the employee, even after checking the hearing schedule, failed to appear at the hearing without any prior explanation. In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that the employee had consistently disregarded the procedures from the initial investigation stage through to the hearing.
As for the dismissal at issue, before even examining whether it was justified, the panel held that, since the employee appeared to have no intention of participating in the Labor Relations Commission procedures after filing the remedy application and was therefore deemed to have voluntarily abandoned the remedy application, there was no longer any practical benefit in making a decision on the merits. Accordingly, the remedy application was dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee files an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal, it must be borne in mind that faithfully responding to subsequent investigation requests, appearance requests, and hearing schedule notices is the starting point of the remedy procedure. If, due to poor management of one’s address, mail is repeatedly returned marked “closed, no one at home,” or if the employee does not respond at all to phone calls, text messages, or emails and fails to appear at the hearing, then even if the employee in fact wishes to contest the dismissal, the Labor Relations Commission may regard the employee as having voluntarily abandoned the remedy application and dismiss it. This should be carefully noted.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when an employee files an unfair dismissal remedy application, it is advisable to faithfully comply with the Labor Relations Commission’s requests for submission of materials and explanations of the facts, while also objectively recording and organizing any non-appearance or non-compliance by the opposing employee. In particular, if the employee is unreachable for an extended period or repeatedly fails to appear at hearings, the employer should clearly explain these circumstances to the Labor Relations Commission so that the case does not become unnecessarily protracted.
In this type of case, both employees and employers must be practically aware that proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission do not end with a “written application” alone; only by faithfully participating in the investigation and hearing can the case proceed to a substantive determination on whether the dismissal or redundancy was justified.
2. Decision Details
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into comprehensive consideration the following: both the appearance request document and the hearing schedule notice were returned marked “closed, no one at home,” indicating that the employee did not receive case-related mail at his/her address; despite multiple attempts by the case officer to contact the employee by phone, text message, and email, the employee did not respond at all and did not comply with requests to appear for fact-finding, suggesting that the employee had no intention of participating in the case or the hearing procedure; and the employee, even after checking the hearing schedule, failed to appear at the hearing without any prior explanation—one can see that the employee consistently disregarded the procedures from the initial investigation stage through to the hearing and did not respond at all to the case officer’s repeated attempts to make contact. Accordingly, it is determined that the employee voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the remedy application.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into comprehensive consideration the following: both the appearance request document and the hearing schedule notice were returned marked “closed, no one at home,” indicating that the employee did not receive case-related mail at his/her address; despite multiple attempts by the case officer to contact the employee by phone, text message, and email, the employee did not respond at all and did not comply with requests to appear for fact-finding, suggesting that the employee had no intention of participating in the case or the hearing procedure; and the employee, even after checking the hearing schedule, failed to appear at the hearing without any prior explanation—one can see that the employee consistently disregarded the procedures from the initial investigation stage through to the hearing and did not respond at all to the case officer’s repeated attempts to make contact. Accordingly, it is determined that the employee voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the remedy application. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions” – Decision Date: – Case Number: Dismissal
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, waiver of remedy 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Sexual Harassment · Duty to Maintain Dignity (Changing Clothes During Company Dinner)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to waiver of remedy application (non-appearance at hearing) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Waiver of Remedy Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “waiver of remedy application (non-appearance at hearing).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae40 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Remedy Application
2026.04.16 · Case Number: Dismissal
Summary of Key Issues: Both the appearance request document and the hearing schedule notice were returned marked “closed, no one at home,” indicating that the employee did not receive case-related mail at his/her address; despite multiple attempts by the case officer to contact the employee by phone, text message, and email, the employee did not respond at all and did not comply with requests to appear for fact-finding, suggesting that the employee had no intention of participating in the case or the hearing procedure; the employee checked the hearing schedule but did not attend the hearing…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for alleged unfair dismissal, but the application was dismissed because the employee failed to respond to requests for contact and appearance throughout the investigation and hearing procedures. The Labor Relations Commission found that both the appearance request document and the hearing schedule notice were returned marked “closed, no one at home,” and that the employee did not respond at all to phone calls, text messages, or emails. On this basis, the Commission determined that the employee had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the remedy application.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether “in an unfair dismissal remedy application, where the employee does not respond at all to the investigation and hearing procedures and fails to appear at the hearing, the employee still retains a legally protectable interest in the remedy.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that both the appearance request document and the hearing schedule notice were returned marked “closed, no one at home,” that the employee did not respond at all despite multiple attempts by the case officer to contact the employee by phone, text message, and email, and that the employee, even after checking the hearing schedule, failed to appear at the hearing without any prior explanation. In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that the employee had consistently disregarded the procedures from the initial investigation stage through to the hearing.
As for the dismissal at issue, before even examining whether it was justified, the panel held that, since the employee appeared to have no intention of participating in the Labor Relations Commission procedures after filing the remedy application and was therefore deemed to have voluntarily abandoned the remedy application, there was no longer any practical benefit in making a decision on the merits. Accordingly, the remedy application was dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee files an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal, it must be borne in mind that faithfully responding to subsequent investigation requests, appearance requests, and hearing schedule notices is the starting point of the remedy procedure. If, due to poor management of one’s address, mail is repeatedly returned marked “closed, no one at home,” or if the employee does not respond at all to phone calls, text messages, or emails and fails to appear at the hearing, then even if the employee in fact wishes to contest the dismissal, the Labor Relations Commission may regard the employee as having voluntarily abandoned the remedy application and dismiss it. This should be carefully noted.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when an employee files an unfair dismissal remedy application, it is advisable to faithfully comply with the Labor Relations Commission’s requests for submission of materials and explanations of the facts, while also objectively recording and organizing any non-appearance or non-compliance by the opposing employee. In particular, if the employee is unreachable for an extended period or repeatedly fails to appear at hearings, the employer should clearly explain these circumstances to the Labor Relations Commission so that the case does not become unnecessarily protracted.
In this type of case, both employees and employers must be practically aware that proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission do not end with a “written application” alone; only by faithfully participating in the investigation and hearing can the case proceed to a substantive determination on whether the dismissal or redundancy was justified.
2. Decision Details
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into comprehensive consideration the following: both the appearance request document and the hearing schedule notice were returned marked “closed, no one at home,” indicating that the employee did not receive case-related mail at his/her address; despite multiple attempts by the case officer to contact the employee by phone, text message, and email, the employee did not respond at all and did not comply with requests to appear for fact-finding, suggesting that the employee had no intention of participating in the case or the hearing procedure; and the employee, even after checking the hearing schedule, failed to appear at the hearing without any prior explanation—one can see that the employee consistently disregarded the procedures from the initial investigation stage through to the hearing and did not respond at all to the case officer’s repeated attempts to make contact. Accordingly, it is determined that the employee voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the remedy application.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into comprehensive consideration the following: both the appearance request document and the hearing schedule notice were returned marked “closed, no one at home,” indicating that the employee did not receive case-related mail at his/her address; despite multiple attempts by the case officer to contact the employee by phone, text message, and email, the employee did not respond at all and did not comply with requests to appear for fact-finding, suggesting that the employee had no intention of participating in the case or the hearing procedure; and the employee, even after checking the hearing schedule, failed to appear at the hearing without any prior explanation—one can see that the employee consistently disregarded the procedures from the initial investigation stage through to the hearing and did not respond at all to the case officer’s repeated attempts to make contact. Accordingly, it is determined that the employee voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the remedy application. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions” – Decision Date: – Case Number: Dismissal
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, waiver of remedy 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Sexual Harassment · Duty to Maintain Dignity (Changing Clothes During Company Dinner)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to waiver of remedy application (non-appearance at hearing) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Waiver of Remedy Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
