[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “absence without leave (failure to return for more than three weeks).” Decision date: 2026-08-03 · Labor Relations Commission: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae2070 Summary of key issues: A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed The employer had reasonable grounds for issuing a personnel order directing the employee to return to the Korean headquarters, and granted the employee a sufficient period of time to return, so the transfer order appears lawful. The employee requested information from the employer regarding the termination and withdrawal of the H-1B visa and the date of filing, and the employer responded after obtaining advice from an attorney. Thereafter, the employee also expressed an intention to return to the headquarters by the personnel order date, but until that date the employee did not… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case concerns an employee who had been working overseas and was given a personnel order to return to the Korean headquarters, but failed to report to the headquarters for an extended period after the specified return date and was therefore dismissed for disciplinary reasons (automatic termination). In the relief application proceedings before the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, the Commission comprehensively reviewed the lawfulness of the employer’s personnel order, the existence of grounds for discipline due to absence without leave, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and compliance with disciplinary procedures, and rendered a decision in favor of the employer. Labor Law Firm Law& sets out below the legal implications of this decision. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Where a transfer/personnel order lawfully directs an employee working overseas to return to the Korean headquarters, and the employee postpones or refuses to return and is absent without leave for an extended period, is a disciplinary dismissal (automatic termination) on that basis justified?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employer had sufficient personnel-related need to order the employee to return from the overseas worksite to the Korean headquarters, and that the employer granted the employee ample time to return to Korea and report to the headquarters. When the employee inquired about matters such as the termination and withdrawal of the H-1B visa, the employer responded after obtaining legal advice, and thereafter the employee also indicated an intention to return to the headquarters by the personnel order date. In light of these circumstances, the Commission found that there was no justifiable reason for the employee’s complete failure to report to the headquarters for more than three weeks from 29 December 2025, which was after the personnel order date; that Article 37(6) of the company’s personnel regulations provides that “where absence without leave continues for five or more consecutive days or totals ten or more days in a month, this constitutes grounds for automatic termination,” and that the number of days of the employee’s absence without leave fell within this provision; and that the disciplinary procedures, including convening and resolution by the disciplinary committee, were conducted in accordance with the rules of employment, and the employee was given an opportunity to attend and present explanations but voluntarily failed to appear. On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was not an unfair dismissal, because grounds for discipline existed, the level of discipline was within the scope of the personnel regulations and could not be regarded as manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should bear in mind that if a transfer/return order from an overseas worksite to the headquarters has been lawfully issued and a reasonable preparation period for compliance has been granted, they must not unilaterally stop reporting to work on grounds of personal circumstances or visa issues. In particular, where the rules of employment or personnel regulations provide that “automatic termination or disciplinary dismissal is possible in the event of absence without leave for five or more consecutive days” or “ten or more days in a month,” refusal to report to work or prolonged absence may immediately lead to dismissal. If there is any disagreement, employees should always raise objections and request consultation in writing, and, as a rule, continue to report to work while pursuing any dispute. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when issuing a return/transfer order to an overseas employee, it is important to objectively explain the necessity and reasons for the order and to keep a record, by email or official correspondence, of the circumstances showing that a reasonable grace period was granted in light of the time needed to prepare for return and to resolve visa matters. In addition, when proceeding with automatic termination or disciplinary dismissal on the grounds of absence without leave, the employer should reconfirm that the requirements regarding the number of days of absence without leave under the rules of employment are precisely met, and systematically retain evidence that the disciplinary procedures—such as notice of convening the disciplinary committee, granting an opportunity to explain, and the deliberation and resolution process—were conducted in accordance with the regulations. To prevail in this type of case, it is particularly important in practice to familiarize oneself in advance with the relevant legal principles regarding the business necessity and reasonableness of the transfer/return order, the duration and reasons for the absence without leave, the proportionality of the level of discipline, and compliance with disciplinary procedures, and to accurately organize and collect at an early stage the facts and evidence that correspond to those legal principles. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was held that grounds for discipline based on the employee’s absence without leave were established, the level of discipline was appropriate, and there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action existed The employer had sufficient grounds for issuing a personnel order directing the employee to return to the Korean headquarters, and the transfer disposition appears lawful in that the employer granted the employee a sufficient period of time to return to the Korean headquarters. The employee requested from the employer information regarding the termination and withdrawal of the H-1B visa and the date of filing, and the employer responded after obtaining advice from an attorney. Taking into account, in their entirety, these circumstances and the fact that the employee thereafter expressed an intention to return to the headquarters by the personnel order date, there was no justifiable reason for the employee’s failure to report to the headquarters after 29 December 2025. B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate The employee failed to report to work for more than three weeks after 29 December 2025, and Article 37(6) of the company’s personnel regulations provides that where absence without leave continues for five or more consecutive days or totals ten or more days in a month, this constitutes grounds for automatic termination. Accordingly, the dismissal is considered appropriate. C. Whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful The disciplinary procedures were conducted in compliance with the rules of employment, and since the employee did not appear before the disciplinary committee, no procedural defect is recognized. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Level of Discipline (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, absence without leave (failure to return for more than three weeks), absence without leave, disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy/non-compliance with work orders, 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. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Scope of Relief (Differences in Performance-Based Bonuses Due to Personnel Evaluation)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to absence without leave (failure to return for more than three weeks) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Absence Without Leave (Failure to Return for More Than Three Weeks).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article