Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Unauthorized Absence (Failure to Return After Leave)” (Unfair Dismissal 499)
- Date2026/06/05 04:13
- Read 42
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) in a dispute over “unauthorized absence (failure to return after the end of a leave period).”
Decision body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae140 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.18 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
It was recognized that, despite the expiration of the leave period, the employee was absent without permission and without just cause for eight days from 16 to 25 September 2025. Accordingly, grounds for disciplinary action existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns whether the disciplinary dismissal of an employee who failed to return to work after the end of a leave period and then remained absent without permission for an extended period constituted an unfair dismissal. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, in a comprehensive manner, the existence of grounds for disciplinary action, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the legality of the disciplinary procedures, and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
The key issue in this case is whether a disciplinary dismissal based on repeated unauthorized absences following the end of a leave period is justified in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) the level of discipline, and (iii) disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case were, first, whether eight days of unauthorized absence after the end of the leave period, in relation to the employee’s duty to report to work, could be recognized as grounds for disciplinary dismissal. Second, in circumstances where there were additional extended absences both before and after the eight days, whether dismissal—the most severe form of discipline—was, in light of social norms, excessively harsh. Third, whether there were any serious defects in the disciplinary procedures, including the employee’s appearance before the disciplinary committee, notification of the grounds for discipline, and the method of serving the written disciplinary resolution.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that, despite the expiration of the leave period, the employee was absent without permission and without just cause for eight days; that this unauthorized absence clearly fell under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in the work rules (Article 84(6)); that, after the end of the leave, the employer had sufficiently informed and encouraged the employee to return to work, yet the employee, despite recognizing the duty to report to work, failed to do so; and that, in addition to the eight days of unauthorized absence forming the basis for discipline, there had been further absences of 29 days and 4 days, respectively, before and after that period.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the grounds for dismissal constituted objectively serious misconduct and, taking into account the accumulation of repeated unauthorized absences, it was difficult to regard the level of discipline as markedly excessive in light of social norms. Furthermore, the employee and the labor union attended the disciplinary committee and were able to learn the details of the disciplinary dismissal; the employee personally refused to accept service of the written notice of the disciplinary resolution; and, given the history of mail being returned due to the premises being closed and no one present, the employer sent the written disciplinary resolution in document form via text message. Considering all of these factors, the Commission found no serious defect in the disciplinary procedures and concluded that the dismissal in this case did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should clearly recognize that, so long as the employment contract remains in effect during a leave of absence, they are naturally obliged to return to work and provide labor once the leave period ends. If unauthorized absences are repeated without just cause and meet the thresholds set out in the work rules (e.g., 3 days, 7 days, 10 days, etc.), a disciplinary dismissal may be recognized as a lawful dismissal. Moreover, all absences before and after the main period may be taken into account, resulting in a more severe level of discipline.
In addition, unilaterally refusing to receive or avoiding contact regarding notices of return to work, requests to appear before the disciplinary committee, or notifications of disciplinary resolutions may operate to the employee’s disadvantage. Employees should always check the employer’s guidance regarding the end of the leave period and the procedures for returning to work, and if there are circumstances that make it difficult to report to work, they should prepare objective materials—such as medical certificates or documentation of family care responsibilities—and provide a sincere written explanation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, in order to justify a disciplinary dismissal based on unauthorized absence, it is important to clearly stipulate in the work rules the number of days of unauthorized absence and the corresponding types of discipline (reprimand, suspension, disciplinary dismissal, etc.). In this case as well, the fact that the conduct in question fell within the grounds for disciplinary dismissal under the work rules supported the legitimacy of the disciplinary action. Accordingly, it is essential to maintain well‑organized regulations and to apply them consistently in practice.
As the end of the leave period approaches, employers should provide sufficient guidance—by verifiable means such as written notices, text messages, or emails—regarding the expected date of return, the place of work, and any required documents, and should keep records of all efforts to encourage the employee’s return. In the disciplinary process, all steps—from convening the disciplinary committee, providing the employee and the union with an opportunity to attend, and notifying the grounds for discipline, through to serving the written disciplinary resolution—should be documented so that procedural propriety can be readily demonstrated before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
To prevail in unfair dismissal disputes of this type involving unauthorized absence, it is advisable to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, who have a thorough understanding of the legal principles governing unfair and disciplinary dismissals and can systematically organize and prove the facts that the Labor Relations Commission considers important.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action
It was recognized that, despite the expiration of the leave period, the employee was absent without permission and without just cause for eight days from 16 to 25 September 2025. Accordingly, grounds for disciplinary action existed.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Given that the grounds for discipline fell under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in Article 84(6) of the work rules; that, after the end of the employee’s leave, the employer had provided the employee with sufficient guidance and encouragement regarding return to work; and that, although the employee knew that, once the leave ended, he or she had a duty as an employee to report to work, there were additional absences of 29 days and 4 days, respectively, before and after the eight days of unauthorized absence forming the basis for discipline, the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employee and the labor union attended the disciplinary committee and were able to learn the details of the disciplinary dismissal; the employee refused to accept service of the written notice of the disciplinary resolution; and, given the history of mail being returned due to the premises being closed and no one present, the employer sent the written disciplinary resolution in document form via text message. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to find any defect in the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action
It was recognized that, despite the expiration of the leave period, the employee was absent without permission and without just cause for eight days from 16 to 25 September 2025. Accordingly, grounds for disciplinary action existed.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Given that the grounds for discipline fell under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in Article 84(6) of the work rules; that, after the end of the employee’s leave, the employer had provided the employee with sufficient guidance and encouragement regarding return to work; and that, although the employee knew that, once the leave ended, he or she had a duty as an employee to report to work, there were additional absences of 29 days and 4 days, respectively, before and after the eight days of unauthorized absence forming the basis for discipline, the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employee and the labor union attended the disciplinary committee and were able to learn the details of the disciplinary dismissal; the employee refused to accept service of the written notice of the disciplinary resolution; and, given the history of mail being returned due to the premises being closed and no one present, the employer sent the written disciplinary resolution in document form via text message. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to find any defect in the disciplinary procedures. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Sexual Harassment·Unauthorized Absence (Text Message After Company Dinner)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, unauthorized absence (failure to return after end of leave), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Sexual Harassment·Unauthorized Absence (Text Message After Company Dinner)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to unauthorized absence (failure to return after end of leave) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Unauthorized Absence (Failure to Return After End of Leave).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) in a dispute over “unauthorized absence (failure to return after the end of a leave period).”
Decision body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae140 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.18 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action
It was recognized that, despite the expiration of the leave period, the employee was absent without permission and without just cause for eight days from 16 to 25 September 2025. Accordingly, grounds for disciplinary action existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns whether the disciplinary dismissal of an employee who failed to return to work after the end of a leave period and then remained absent without permission for an extended period constituted an unfair dismissal. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, in a comprehensive manner, the existence of grounds for disciplinary action, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the legality of the disciplinary procedures, and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
The key issue in this case is whether a disciplinary dismissal based on repeated unauthorized absences following the end of a leave period is justified in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) the level of discipline, and (iii) disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case were, first, whether eight days of unauthorized absence after the end of the leave period, in relation to the employee’s duty to report to work, could be recognized as grounds for disciplinary dismissal. Second, in circumstances where there were additional extended absences both before and after the eight days, whether dismissal—the most severe form of discipline—was, in light of social norms, excessively harsh. Third, whether there were any serious defects in the disciplinary procedures, including the employee’s appearance before the disciplinary committee, notification of the grounds for discipline, and the method of serving the written disciplinary resolution.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that, despite the expiration of the leave period, the employee was absent without permission and without just cause for eight days; that this unauthorized absence clearly fell under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in the work rules (Article 84(6)); that, after the end of the leave, the employer had sufficiently informed and encouraged the employee to return to work, yet the employee, despite recognizing the duty to report to work, failed to do so; and that, in addition to the eight days of unauthorized absence forming the basis for discipline, there had been further absences of 29 days and 4 days, respectively, before and after that period.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the grounds for dismissal constituted objectively serious misconduct and, taking into account the accumulation of repeated unauthorized absences, it was difficult to regard the level of discipline as markedly excessive in light of social norms. Furthermore, the employee and the labor union attended the disciplinary committee and were able to learn the details of the disciplinary dismissal; the employee personally refused to accept service of the written notice of the disciplinary resolution; and, given the history of mail being returned due to the premises being closed and no one present, the employer sent the written disciplinary resolution in document form via text message. Considering all of these factors, the Commission found no serious defect in the disciplinary procedures and concluded that the dismissal in this case did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should clearly recognize that, so long as the employment contract remains in effect during a leave of absence, they are naturally obliged to return to work and provide labor once the leave period ends. If unauthorized absences are repeated without just cause and meet the thresholds set out in the work rules (e.g., 3 days, 7 days, 10 days, etc.), a disciplinary dismissal may be recognized as a lawful dismissal. Moreover, all absences before and after the main period may be taken into account, resulting in a more severe level of discipline.
In addition, unilaterally refusing to receive or avoiding contact regarding notices of return to work, requests to appear before the disciplinary committee, or notifications of disciplinary resolutions may operate to the employee’s disadvantage. Employees should always check the employer’s guidance regarding the end of the leave period and the procedures for returning to work, and if there are circumstances that make it difficult to report to work, they should prepare objective materials—such as medical certificates or documentation of family care responsibilities—and provide a sincere written explanation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, in order to justify a disciplinary dismissal based on unauthorized absence, it is important to clearly stipulate in the work rules the number of days of unauthorized absence and the corresponding types of discipline (reprimand, suspension, disciplinary dismissal, etc.). In this case as well, the fact that the conduct in question fell within the grounds for disciplinary dismissal under the work rules supported the legitimacy of the disciplinary action. Accordingly, it is essential to maintain well‑organized regulations and to apply them consistently in practice.
As the end of the leave period approaches, employers should provide sufficient guidance—by verifiable means such as written notices, text messages, or emails—regarding the expected date of return, the place of work, and any required documents, and should keep records of all efforts to encourage the employee’s return. In the disciplinary process, all steps—from convening the disciplinary committee, providing the employee and the union with an opportunity to attend, and notifying the grounds for discipline, through to serving the written disciplinary resolution—should be documented so that procedural propriety can be readily demonstrated before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
To prevail in unfair dismissal disputes of this type involving unauthorized absence, it is advisable to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, who have a thorough understanding of the legal principles governing unfair and disciplinary dismissals and can systematically organize and prove the facts that the Labor Relations Commission considers important.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action
It was recognized that, despite the expiration of the leave period, the employee was absent without permission and without just cause for eight days from 16 to 25 September 2025. Accordingly, grounds for disciplinary action existed.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Given that the grounds for discipline fell under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in Article 84(6) of the work rules; that, after the end of the employee’s leave, the employer had provided the employee with sufficient guidance and encouragement regarding return to work; and that, although the employee knew that, once the leave ended, he or she had a duty as an employee to report to work, there were additional absences of 29 days and 4 days, respectively, before and after the eight days of unauthorized absence forming the basis for discipline, the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employee and the labor union attended the disciplinary committee and were able to learn the details of the disciplinary dismissal; the employee refused to accept service of the written notice of the disciplinary resolution; and, given the history of mail being returned due to the premises being closed and no one present, the employer sent the written disciplinary resolution in document form via text message. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to find any defect in the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action
It was recognized that, despite the expiration of the leave period, the employee was absent without permission and without just cause for eight days from 16 to 25 September 2025. Accordingly, grounds for disciplinary action existed.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Given that the grounds for discipline fell under the grounds for disciplinary dismissal set out in Article 84(6) of the work rules; that, after the end of the employee’s leave, the employer had provided the employee with sufficient guidance and encouragement regarding return to work; and that, although the employee knew that, once the leave ended, he or she had a duty as an employee to report to work, there were additional absences of 29 days and 4 days, respectively, before and after the eight days of unauthorized absence forming the basis for discipline, the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employee and the labor union attended the disciplinary committee and were able to learn the details of the disciplinary dismissal; the employee refused to accept service of the written notice of the disciplinary resolution; and, given the history of mail being returned due to the premises being closed and no one present, the employer sent the written disciplinary resolution in document form via text message. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to find any defect in the disciplinary procedures. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Sexual Harassment·Unauthorized Absence (Text Message After Company Dinner)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, unauthorized absence (failure to return after end of leave), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Sexual Harassment·Unauthorized Absence (Text Message After Company Dinner)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to unauthorized absence (failure to return after end of leave) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Unauthorized Absence (Failure to Return After End of Leave).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
