[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “unauthorized absence (non-return for more than 3 weeks).” Adjudicating Body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission Case No. 2026부해2070 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision Date: 2026-08-03 · Outcome: Dismissed Summary of Key Issues: “… In light of the fact that the employee had expressed an intention to return to Korea, it is concluded that there was no justifiable reason for the employee’s failure to report to the head office after 29 December 2025. (b) Whether the level of disciplinary action was appropriate: The employee did not 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 unauthorized absence continues for 5 or more consecutive days or totals 10 or more days in a month, it constitutes grounds for automatic termination. Accordingly, the dismissal is deemed appropriate …” 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee who had been working at an overseas site failed to report to the head office for an extended period after returning to Korea. The company, relying on its personnel regulations, treated this as automatic termination/dismissal, and the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Labor Relations Commission examined the legitimacy of the dismissal, focusing on compliance with the company’s rules of employment (personnel regulations) and the disciplinary procedures. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is: “Whether it was lawful for the company to treat the employment as automatically terminated and to dismiss the employee under its personnel regulations, where the employee, having stated that he would return to Korea upon completion of overseas duties, remained absent without leave for more than three weeks.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The adjudicating panel found that the employer had instructed the employee to return to Korea, and the employee had also stated that he would return. Nevertheless, the employee failed to report to the head office for more than three weeks after 29 December 2025, and no justifiable reason for such absence could be recognized. The panel further noted that Article 37(6) of the company’s Personnel Regulations stipulates that “where unauthorized absence continues for 5 or more consecutive days or totals 10 or more days in a month, it constitutes grounds for automatic termination,” and that the disciplinary procedures, including convening and resolution by the Disciplinary Committee, were conducted in accordance with the rules of employment, with the employee himself choosing not to attend the Disciplinary Committee. In light of the period and extent of the unauthorized absence, the internal rules on automatic termination, and compliance with the disciplinary procedures, the Commission held that the level of disciplinary action could not be regarded as manifestly unreasonable by social standards and that there were no procedural defects. Accordingly, it ruled that the dismissal in this case was justified. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that, even in situations involving the end of overseas assignments or changes in workplace such as departmental transfers, if the employee fails to comply with the employer’s instruction to return and remains absent without leave for an extended period, this will likely fall under grounds for automatic termination or disciplinary dismissal under the rules of employment, making it very difficult to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal. If there are justifiable reasons such as sick leave, leave of absence, or annual leave, the employee must apply in advance and keep records of the application, the approval status, and all communications with the company in writing or via messenger, etc. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the company’s perspective, when dealing with dismissal or automatic termination on the grounds of unauthorized absence, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment the number of days of unauthorized absence and its consequences (e.g., redundancy dismissal, disciplinary dismissal, automatic termination), and to strictly comply with the disciplinary procedures set out therein. In cases of prolonged absence, the company should repeatedly demand the employee’s return and request explanations by phone, text message, email, etc., and keep records of having provided the employee with an opportunity to attend the Disciplinary Committee. Doing so will make it easier to obtain recognition of procedural fairness before the Labor Relations Commission. To prevent this type of unfair dismissal dispute, employers should refine internal rules relating to unauthorized absence, accurately understand the legal principles governing the operation of disciplinary procedures, and carefully examine, on a case-by-case basis, the existence of justifiable reasons and the appropriateness of the level of discipline. Prior consultation with an expert familiar with the practical tendencies of the Labor Relations Commission (such as Labor Law Firm Law&) can be very helpful in reducing dispute risk. 2. Matters Adjudicated a. Case Overview and Procedural History “… In light of the fact that the employee had expressed an intention to return to Korea, it is concluded that there was no justifiable reason for the employee’s failure to report to the head office after 29 December 2025. b. Whether the level of disciplinary action was appropriate The employee did not 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 unauthorized absence continues for 5 or more consecutive days or totals 10 or more days in a month, it constitutes grounds for automatic termination. Accordingly, the dismissal is deemed appropriate. c. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful The disciplinary procedure was conducted in compliance with the rules of employment, and since the employee did not attend the Disciplinary Committee, no procedural defect is recognized.” 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning “… In light of the fact that the employee had expressed an intention to return to Korea, it is concluded that there was no justifiable reason for the employee’s failure to report to the head office after 29 December 2025. b. Whether the level of disciplinary action was appropriate The employee did not 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 unauthorized absence continues for 5 or more consecutive days or totals 10 or more days in a month, it constitutes grounds for automatic termination. Accordingly, the dismissal is deemed appropriate. c. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful The disciplinary procedure was conducted in compliance with the rules of employment, and since the employee did not attend the Disciplinary Committee, no procedural defect is recognized.” [See More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision: Application Dismissed - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision: First-Instance Decision Upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, unauthorized absence (non-return for more than 3 weeks), unauthorized absence, disciplinary dismissal, 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Scope of Remedy (Differences in Performance-Based Bonuses Due to Performance Evaluation)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of precedents relating to unauthorized absence (non-return for more than 3 weeks) can be found in the “List of Precedents Relating to Unauthorized Absence (Non-Return for More Than 3 Weeks).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article