[Case Information] This case is a decision that was concluded on procedural grounds as “preclusion (non-appearance at two hearings).” Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1286 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-06 · Case Type: Dismissed (Procedural) Key Issue Summary: Our Commission in 2026 … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal, but repeatedly failed to appear at the hearings, resulting in the application being dismissed on procedural grounds. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission convened two hearings, and when the employee failed to appear on both occasions, it deemed that the employee had abandoned the intention to pursue the remedy and issued a decision of procedural dismissal. This decision is significant in that, in unfair dismissal cases, if the procedures before the Labor Relations Commission are not properly followed, no substantive determination will be made on whether the dismissal was justified. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, where an employee who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal fails to appear at two consecutive hearings of the Labor Relations Commission, the employee should still be regarded as intending to continue the remedy procedure, or whether the application may be dismissed pursuant to the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the hearing scheduled by our Commission on 12 June 2026 could not proceed and had to be postponed because the employee failed to appear; that, in order to provide another opportunity for statement, a new hearing was designated for 6 July 2026, at which the employee again failed to appear; and that Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provides that an application may be dismissed where it may be deemed that the applicant has no intention to pursue the remedy, such as where a party, without just cause, fails to respond to a hearing. In light of the above, the panel held that the employee’s failure to appear at two hearings must be regarded as a voluntary abandonment of the intention to pursue the application for remedy, and therefore dismissed the application without any determination on the merits. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) If an employee has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee must attend the hearings designated by the Labor Relations Commission. If, unavoidably, attendance is difficult, the employee must submit a written request for postponement within the grounds and time limits prescribed in the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission. If the employee repeatedly fails to appear without doing so, the application may be dismissed as an “abandonment of the application for remedy,” as in this case. The Labor Relations Commission is not an institution that investigates the justification of an unfair dismissal on its own initiative; it conducts hearings on the premise that the parties appear and present their arguments. Accordingly, if a party does not participate in the procedure, the party will in effect lose the opportunity to obtain relief. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when an employee files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it is advisable to carefully check the notices of hearings and the progress of the proceedings. Even if the case is dismissed because the employee repeatedly fails to appear, the company should still attend, make statements, and submit materials in good faith. This will make it easier, at any subsequent re-application or litigation stage, to prove that the company faithfully participated in the procedure. In addition, with the assistance of professional labor consultants such as Labor Law Firm Law&, employers should pre-emptively review HR and labor risks related to unfair dismissal and redundancy, and, once proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission have commenced, keep records of all notices and hearing dates. This decision illustrates that, if basic procedural responses such as “appearance and requests for postponement” are neglected in proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, the case may be concluded regardless of whether the dismissal was substantively justified. In unfair dismissal and redundancy disputes, strict compliance with procedure is just as important as the substantive content in order to obtain effective relief. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History At the hearing convened by our Commission on 12 June 2026, the employee failed to appear, and the hearing was postponed. At the hearing convened on 6 July 2026 to provide an opportunity for statement, the employee again failed to appear. As the employee failed to appear at two hearings in this manner, the application was dismissed pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the employee had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning At the hearing convened by our Commission on 12 June 2026, the employee failed to appear, and the hearing was postponed. At the hearing convened on 6 July 2026 to provide an opportunity for statement, the employee again failed to appear. As the employee failed to appear at two hearings in this manner, the application was dismissed pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the employee had voluntarily abandoned the intention to pursue the application for remedy. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Decision of Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” in Unfair Dismissal Case – Date of Decision: - Case Type: Dismissed (Procedural) - “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” in Unfair Dismissal Case - “No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” in Unfair Dismissal Case – Date of Decision: - Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, decision precluded on procedural grounds (non-appearance at two hearings), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Misunderstanding as to Existence of Dismissal (Encouragement to Resign·Change of Position)’ in Unfair Dismissal Case,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to decision precluded on procedural grounds (non-appearance at two hearings) can be found under “List of Decisions on Preclusion on Procedural Grounds (Non-Appearance at Two Hearings).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article