Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision Preclusion (Non-Appearance at Hearing) in Unfair Dismissal Cases (Unfair Dismissal 507)
- Date2026/06/30 04:10
- Read 20
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “decision preclusion (non-appearance at hearing).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae723 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-12 · Case Type: Dismissed
Core Issue Summary: The employee in 2026.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. However, the application was ultimately dismissed because the employee repeatedly failed to appear at the hearings. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission scheduled two hearing dates for the employee, but the employee failed to appear on both occasions. On this basis, the Commission deemed that the employee had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the remedy application and, in accordance with the Labor Relations Commission Rules, issued a decision dismissing the case. The substantive merits of the unfair dismissal claim were never examined.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the Labor Relations Commission may dismiss an application for remedy where an employee who has filed for relief from unfair dismissal repeatedly fails, without just cause, to appear at the Commission’s hearings. In other words, separate from the substantive question of whether the dismissal was unfair, the key point is whether the employee’s non-appearance at the procedural stage can be regarded as an intention to abandon the application for remedy.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employee did not appear at the first hearing (2026. 4. 28.), and also failed to appear at the second hearing (2026. 6. 12.), which had been rescheduled to afford the employee another opportunity to present statements. The panel further noted that, despite these two absences, there was no confirmed request for postponement or explanation of reasons. In light of these circumstances, the panel concluded that the employee had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy.
The dismissal in this case was therefore found to be procedurally dismissible under Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, even before reaching any substantive determination on the legitimacy of the dismissal itself.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee files an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission to contest an unfair dismissal, it is essential to recognize that attendance at the hearing is a “mandatory step” for obtaining relief. If unavoidable circumstances make attendance difficult, the employee must submit a request for postponement within the time limits prescribed by the Rules and provide specific explanations of the reasons (illness, criminal proceedings, funeral, etc.) in order to avoid dismissal of the application.
If non-appearance at hearings is repeated, the Commission will not be able to render any decision on whether the dismissal was unfair, which in practical terms may amount to accepting the dismissal. It is advisable to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to prepare for the hearing, organize evidence, and manage schedules in a systematic manner.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if the employee repeatedly fails to appear at the hearings and the case is dismissed, the matter may be procedurally concluded without any substantive dispute over whether the dismissal was unfair. However, this does not mean that the legitimacy of dismissals in similar unfair dismissal or redundancy disputes involving other employees will automatically be recognized in the future. Employers should therefore always separately ensure the legitimacy of dismissal grounds and compliance with procedural requirements (dismissal notice, disciplinary procedures, etc.).
In addition, during the Commission’s process of deciding whether to proceed in the employee’s absence or to dismiss the case, the company’s attitude toward attendance and its diligence in submitting materials may also be recorded. Accordingly, it is advisable to cooperate faithfully with the hearing procedures. When necessary, consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to establish a response strategy that takes into account potential future disputes.
[Summary of Labor Relations Commission Procedures]
As a rule, hearings before the Labor Relations Commission are conducted with both parties in attendance. However, if one party fails to appear without just cause, the hearing may proceed in that party’s absence. In particular, where repeated non-appearance leads to the conclusion that the applicant has voluntarily abandoned the opportunity to present statements, the application for remedy may be dismissed pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, as in this case. This point should be carefully noted in practice.
If procedural requirements are neglected in the course of contesting an unfair dismissal, even a case that is substantively very favorable to the employee may fail to clear the threshold for relief. Therefore, when facing disputes involving unfair dismissal, Labor Relations Commission procedures, or redundancy, it is crucial from the initial stage to manage schedules, appearances, and written submissions thoroughly.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee did not appear at the hearing held on 2026. 4. 28., and also failed to appear at the second hearing held on 2026. 6. 12., which was scheduled to provide an opportunity for the employee to present statements. Since the employee failed to appear at two hearings in this manner, the Commission deemed that the employee had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy and dismissed the case pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employee did not appear at the hearing held on 2026. 4. 28., and also failed to appear at the second hearing held on 2026. 6. 12., which was scheduled to provide an opportunity for the employee to present statements. Since the employee failed to appear at two hearings in this manner, the Commission deemed that the employee had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy and dismissed the case pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Decision Preclusion (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” in Unfair Dismissal Cases – Date of Decision: - Case Type: Dismissed
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)” in Unfair Dismissal Cases
- “Dismissal ex Officio (Three Months After Placement on Standby)” in Unfair Dismissal Cases
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, decision preclusion (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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “Dismissal ex Officio (Three Months After Placement on Standby) in Unfair Dismissal Cases,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to decision preclusion (non-appearance at hearing) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Decision Preclusion (Non-Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “decision preclusion (non-appearance at hearing).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae723 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-12 · Case Type: Dismissed
Core Issue Summary: The employee in 2026.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. However, the application was ultimately dismissed because the employee repeatedly failed to appear at the hearings. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission scheduled two hearing dates for the employee, but the employee failed to appear on both occasions. On this basis, the Commission deemed that the employee had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the remedy application and, in accordance with the Labor Relations Commission Rules, issued a decision dismissing the case. The substantive merits of the unfair dismissal claim were never examined.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the Labor Relations Commission may dismiss an application for remedy where an employee who has filed for relief from unfair dismissal repeatedly fails, without just cause, to appear at the Commission’s hearings. In other words, separate from the substantive question of whether the dismissal was unfair, the key point is whether the employee’s non-appearance at the procedural stage can be regarded as an intention to abandon the application for remedy.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employee did not appear at the first hearing (2026. 4. 28.), and also failed to appear at the second hearing (2026. 6. 12.), which had been rescheduled to afford the employee another opportunity to present statements. The panel further noted that, despite these two absences, there was no confirmed request for postponement or explanation of reasons. In light of these circumstances, the panel concluded that the employee had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy.
The dismissal in this case was therefore found to be procedurally dismissible under Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, even before reaching any substantive determination on the legitimacy of the dismissal itself.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee files an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission to contest an unfair dismissal, it is essential to recognize that attendance at the hearing is a “mandatory step” for obtaining relief. If unavoidable circumstances make attendance difficult, the employee must submit a request for postponement within the time limits prescribed by the Rules and provide specific explanations of the reasons (illness, criminal proceedings, funeral, etc.) in order to avoid dismissal of the application.
If non-appearance at hearings is repeated, the Commission will not be able to render any decision on whether the dismissal was unfair, which in practical terms may amount to accepting the dismissal. It is advisable to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to prepare for the hearing, organize evidence, and manage schedules in a systematic manner.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if the employee repeatedly fails to appear at the hearings and the case is dismissed, the matter may be procedurally concluded without any substantive dispute over whether the dismissal was unfair. However, this does not mean that the legitimacy of dismissals in similar unfair dismissal or redundancy disputes involving other employees will automatically be recognized in the future. Employers should therefore always separately ensure the legitimacy of dismissal grounds and compliance with procedural requirements (dismissal notice, disciplinary procedures, etc.).
In addition, during the Commission’s process of deciding whether to proceed in the employee’s absence or to dismiss the case, the company’s attitude toward attendance and its diligence in submitting materials may also be recorded. Accordingly, it is advisable to cooperate faithfully with the hearing procedures. When necessary, consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to establish a response strategy that takes into account potential future disputes.
[Summary of Labor Relations Commission Procedures]
As a rule, hearings before the Labor Relations Commission are conducted with both parties in attendance. However, if one party fails to appear without just cause, the hearing may proceed in that party’s absence. In particular, where repeated non-appearance leads to the conclusion that the applicant has voluntarily abandoned the opportunity to present statements, the application for remedy may be dismissed pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, as in this case. This point should be carefully noted in practice.
If procedural requirements are neglected in the course of contesting an unfair dismissal, even a case that is substantively very favorable to the employee may fail to clear the threshold for relief. Therefore, when facing disputes involving unfair dismissal, Labor Relations Commission procedures, or redundancy, it is crucial from the initial stage to manage schedules, appearances, and written submissions thoroughly.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee did not appear at the hearing held on 2026. 4. 28., and also failed to appear at the second hearing held on 2026. 6. 12., which was scheduled to provide an opportunity for the employee to present statements. Since the employee failed to appear at two hearings in this manner, the Commission deemed that the employee had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy and dismissed the case pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employee did not appear at the hearing held on 2026. 4. 28., and also failed to appear at the second hearing held on 2026. 6. 12., which was scheduled to provide an opportunity for the employee to present statements. Since the employee failed to appear at two hearings in this manner, the Commission deemed that the employee had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy and dismissed the case pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Decision Preclusion (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” in Unfair Dismissal Cases – Date of Decision: - Case Type: Dismissed
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)” in Unfair Dismissal Cases
- “Dismissal ex Officio (Three Months After Placement on Standby)” in Unfair Dismissal Cases
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, decision preclusion (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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “Dismissal ex Officio (Three Months After Placement on Standby) in Unfair Dismissal Cases,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to decision preclusion (non-appearance at hearing) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Decision Preclusion (Non-Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
