This case on “Expectation of Re-employment after Mandatory Retirement (Hall Serving Fixed-term Position)” ended with a decision in favor of the employer (dismissal of the claim). Date of Decision: 2026-08-25 · Labor Relations Commission: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae280 Summary of Key Issues: A. Whether an expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement exists. The work rules provided that an employee who has reached the mandatory retirement age may be hired as a fixed-term (choktack) employee if certain requirements are met; the hall serving work performed by the employee constituted regular and continuous work; and on 2025. 12. 31, the employer convened a Fixed-term Hiring Review Committee and resolved to re-employ five employees (Lee ○○, Kim ○○, Gong ○○, Park ○○, Cho ○○) whose mandatory retirement age had passed, as fixed-term employees… 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case concerns a refusal to re-employ an employee after mandatory retirement, disputed before the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission recognized the employee’s expectation of re-employment, but ultimately sided with the employer based on the specific circumstances. At Labor Law Firm Law&, this is a frequently consulted type of matter alongside collective redundancies and refusals to renew fixed-term contracts. It is an important decision for understanding the legal principles surrounding re-employment in fixed-term positions after mandatory retirement. Ⅰ. Case Overview Until reaching the mandatory retirement age, the employee in this case had been responsible for hall serving duties at the union. Upon reaching retirement age, the employee wished to maintain the employment relationship in anticipation of being re-employed in a fixed-term position. At the end of 2025, the employer, through a Fixed-term Hiring Review Committee, re-employed multiple employees who had passed the mandatory retirement age as fixed-term employees. However, it refused to re-employ this employee, who was on unpaid sick leave, as a fixed-term employee. The employee filed a relief application with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that, despite having an expectation of re-employment in a fixed-term position after mandatory retirement, being excluded from re-employment amounted to unfair dismissal. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a hearing under Case No. 2026BuHae280 and rendered its decision focusing on whether the refusal to re-employ was justified. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case was: “In a situation where the work rules provide for a fixed-term hiring system after mandatory retirement, and there is an established practice of re-employing comparable employees as fixed-term employees after retirement, whether the refusal to re-employ an employee on unpaid sick leave in a fixed-term position is based on reasonable grounds.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel held that the employee had a reasonable expectation of being re-employed in a fixed-term position after mandatory retirement, given that: (i) the work rules contained a provision allowing employees who have reached the mandatory retirement age to be hired as fixed-term employees if certain requirements are met; (ii) hall serving and room serving duties were operated as regular and continuous work; and (iii) there was a precedent in which five employees who had passed the mandatory retirement age were re-employed as fixed-term employees. On the other hand, the panel took into account that, as of the time the employee reached the mandatory retirement age, the employee had been on unpaid sick leave for approximately three months; that the medical certificate submitted by the employee contained a physician’s opinion that “normal performance of work is difficult due to symptoms in the knee joint area”; that, in the most recent interview, the employee complained of severe pain even when walking up and down stairs or walking short distances; and that hall serving and room serving duties, which are core tasks of the union, necessarily require intensive physical activity such as continuous walking, carrying heavy items, and frequently going up and down steps and stairs. Based on the above, the panel determined that the employee’s current physical condition significantly impaired the ability to perform the original duties normally. Applying the “reasonable grounds” standard developed in the case law on the expectation of renewal of fixed-term contracts, the panel found that there were objective and reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to re-employ the employee in a fixed-term position. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that, even after mandatory retirement, if the work rules or collective agreement provide for a fixed-term hiring system after retirement and there are actual cases of comparable employees being re-employed, a certain expectation of re-employment may be recognized. However, this expectation does not amount to a “guarantee of automatic re-employment.” In particular, where there has been a significant change in health status or ability to perform the job, such change may constitute a reasonable ground for the employer to refuse re-employment. Therefore, following illness or an industrial accident, it is important to actively propose and discuss alternatives such as changes in duties or requests for job reassignment. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when operating a fixed-term hiring system after mandatory retirement, it is necessary to proceed on the premise that such a system may give rise to a certain expectation of re-employment, rather than being a matter of unfettered discretion. Accordingly, criteria for deciding on re-employment—such as health status, ability to perform duties, and work performance—should be clearly stipulated in the work rules or internal guidelines. In particular, where, as in this case, re-employment is refused on health grounds, retaining objective medical evidence such as medical certificates, interview records, and comparative analyses of the specific physical demands of the relevant duties will increase the likelihood that “reasonable grounds” will be recognized at the Labor Relations Commission stage. Just like collective redundancies, refusals to re-employ after mandatory retirement involve significant HR and labor-management risks. It is therefore advisable to reduce disputes over fairness by improving procedures, such as operating a re-employment review committee, giving prior notice of review criteria, and providing written notice of review results and reasons. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that, although the employee had an expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement, the refusal to re-employ was justified because reasonable grounds for the refusal were recognized. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether an expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement exists Given that the work rules provided that an employee who has reached the mandatory retirement age may be hired as a fixed-term employee if certain requirements are met; that the hall serving duties performed by the employee constituted regular and continuous work; and that, on 2025. 12. 31, the employer convened a Fixed-term Hiring Review Committee and resolved to re-employ five employees (Lee ○○, Kim ○○, Gong ○○, Park ○○, Cho ○○) whose mandatory retirement age had passed, as fixed-term employees, the employee is deemed to have had a reasonable expectation of being re-employed as a fixed-term employee. B. Whether reasonable grounds for refusing re-employment exist As of the time the employee reached the mandatory retirement age, the employee had been on unpaid sick leave for approximately three months. The medical certificate submitted by the employee contained a physician’s opinion that “normal performance of work is difficult due to symptoms in the knee joint area.” In the most recent interview with the employee, the employee complained of severe pain and discomfort when walking up and down stairs and when walking short distances. The union’s core duties of “hall serving” and “room serving” necessarily require intensive physical activity, including continuous walking, carrying heavy items, and frequently going up and down steps and stairs. In light of the employee’s physical condition, it appears that there would be a significant impediment to performing these duties normally. Accordingly, it is determined that there were objective and reasonable grounds for the employer’s decision not to re-employ the employee as a fixed-term employee. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Relief Interest · Refusal of Re-employment (Fixed-term Position after Mandatory Retirement)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Succession of Employment (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanctions (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement (hall serving fixed-term position), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, performance evaluation · poor performance, 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 on ‘Voluntary Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to the expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement (hall serving fixed-term position) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Expectation of Re-employment after Mandatory Retirement (Hall Serving Fixed-term Position)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article