[Case Information] This case is a decision concerning the issues of “relief interest · refusal of re‑employment (post‑retirement fixed‑term employment)” concluded under case number 2025부해1086. Decision date: 2025-11-03 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2025부해1086 Key issue summary: A. Whether the worker’s application for re‑review of unfair dismissal relief has any relief interest An application for re‑review of unfair dismissal relief seeking the cancellation of a decision already rendered in favor of the worker lacks relief interest. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case was a re‑review case handled by the Central Labor Relations Commission, in which the worker applied again for unfair dismissal relief after already receiving a favorable decision at first instance. In addition, the case raised the questions of whether the employer’s refusal to re‑employ the worker as a fixed‑term employee after the mandatory retirement age (60) constituted unfair dismissal, and whether the employer’s conduct amounted to an unfair labor practice. Labor Law Firm Law& can be regarded as having been involved as counsel in this case. The Labor Relations Commission sequentially examined (i) whether the worker’s application for re‑review had any relief interest, (ii) whether refusal of re‑employment as a fixed‑term employee after retirement age could be regarded as a dismissal similar to a redundancy dismissal, and (iii) whether the employer’s union‑related conduct constituted an unfair labor practice. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are: “Whether there exists any relief interest in filing a re‑review against an unfair dismissal decision that has already been finally rendered in favor of the worker; whether, where a legitimate expectation of re‑employment as a fixed‑term employee after retirement has been formed, the employer’s refusal to re‑employ can be regarded as unfair dismissal; and, furthermore, whether the termination of the employment relationship and related conduct amount to an unfair labor practice.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case held that, where a favorable first‑instance decision has already been rendered for the worker, a re‑review application seeking its cancellation, even if the worker is partially dissatisfied with the contents of the decision, can hardly be regarded as having separate relief interest; that the existing decision has already secured the core relief such as restoration of legal status and payment of wage equivalents; and that, in such circumstances, any remaining issues can be addressed through other procedures such as civil litigation. Accordingly, the panel found that the worker’s application for re‑review of unfair dismissal relief lacked relief interest and should therefore be dismissed. The panel further held that the provisions on re‑employment as a fixed‑term employee in the work rules and collective agreement should reasonably be interpreted to mean that re‑employment will be granted as a fixed‑term employee if certain conditions are met; that there was an operational practice of re‑employing 17 other workers who had reached retirement age as fixed‑term employees without separate screening; and that, in light of this, a legitimate expectation of re‑employment as a fixed‑term employee had been formed for the worker on the same basis. Taking into account that the two accidents in question could not be regarded as serious enough to render the worker unable to perform duties after retirement; that the evaluation criteria for work performance were unclear, making it difficult to recognize the objectivity of the unfavorable evaluation; and that it was difficult to conclude that the labor‑management relationship of trust had been significantly destroyed solely due to the lawsuits and complaints filed by the worker, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was an unfair measure that infringed, without reasonable cause, the worker’s legitimate expectation of re‑employment as a fixed‑term employee after retirement. Furthermore, the panel found that the termination of the employment relationship resulted from the automatic extinguishment of the relationship due to the arrival of the retirement age, and that there were no specific circumstances indicating that the worker had been treated unfavorably because of union membership or union activities. It also held that the release‑of‑claims agreement presented by the employer did not clearly demonstrate an intention to dominate or interfere with the organization or operation of the labor union. In light of the above, the panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find that the employer had engaged in an unfair labor practice by way of unfavorable treatment or domination/interference, and therefore did not recognize the existence of an unfair labor practice. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s perspective, if a Labor Relations Commission decision has already been rendered in your favor, you should bear in mind that filing a re‑review application regarding the same measure may be denied for lack of relief interest. However, if you remain dissatisfied with monetary aspects such as wages or severance pay, you should consider pursuing those parts through civil litigation or other separate legal procedures. In addition, if, under company rules and actual practice, re‑employment as a fixed‑term employee after retirement has been operated in effect as a “routine procedure,” there is room for your own legitimate expectation of re‑employment as a fixed‑term employee to be recognized. In such cases, where the reasons for refusal of re‑employment are ambiguous, the evaluation criteria are unclear, or the employer takes issue solely with your filing of lawsuits or complaints, you should actively consider filing an application for unfair dismissal relief. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, once a favorable decision for the worker in relation to the same dismissal case has become final, you should understand that any re‑review application by the worker seeking its cancellation may be dismissed for lack of relief interest, and anticipate that subsequent disputes will mainly continue in the civil sphere, such as claims for wages or damages. Where you operate a system of re‑employment as a fixed‑term employee after retirement, it is important to clearly stipulate the conditions for re‑employment and evaluation criteria in the work rules and collective agreement, and to maintain actual operational practices consistently in line with those criteria. If you intend, by way of exception, to refuse re‑employment to a particular worker, you must be able to clearly prove objective and reasonable grounds, such as health problems or diminished work capacity. You should be aware that refusing re‑employment solely on the grounds of filing lawsuits, submitting complaints, or engaging in union activities carries a high risk of escalating into disputes over unfair dismissal or unfair labor practices. Moreover, when using release‑of‑claims agreements, undertakings, or similar documents, if they are used in a manner that excessively restricts union activities or the right to a trial, they may give rise to suspicion of unfair labor practices. You should therefore carefully design their purpose, content, and the circumstances of their execution. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that: (i) a worker’s application for re‑review of unfair dismissal relief seeking the cancellation of a decision already rendered in the worker’s favor lacks relief interest; (ii) refusal of re‑employment as a fixed‑term employee without reasonable cause, despite the existence of a legitimate expectation of such re‑employment, is unfair; and (iii) there is no basis to find that the employer engaged in an unfair labor practice by way of unfavorable treatment or domination/interference, and thus no unfair labor practice is established. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether the worker’s application for re‑review of unfair dismissal relief has relief interest An application for re‑review of unfair dismissal relief seeking the cancellation of a decision already rendered in favor of the worker lacks relief interest. Therefore, there is no need to further examine the legitimacy of the dismissal. B. Whether refusal of re‑employment as a fixed‑term employee after retirement (age 60) constitutes unfair dismissal It is reasonable to interpret the provisions on re‑employment as a fixed‑term employee in the work rules and collective agreement as meaning that workers will be re‑employed as fixed‑term employees if certain conditions are met. Considering that the employer re‑employed 17 other workers who had reached retirement age (60) as fixed‑term employees without any separate conditions or evaluations, a legitimate expectation of re‑employment as a fixed‑term employee had been formed for the worker. In addition, in light of the facts that the two accidents in question were not serious enough to render the worker unable to perform duties after retirement; that the criteria for performance evaluation were unclear; and that it is difficult to conclude that the relationship of trust between labor and management was significantly damaged solely due to the various lawsuits and complaints filed by the worker against the employer, there is no reasonable ground for refusing re‑employment as a fixed‑term employee. C. Whether the termination of the employment relationship, etc. constitutes an unfair labor practice The termination of the employment relationship resulted from the arrival of the “retirement age,” and it cannot be concluded that the worker was treated unfavorably because he or she joined a labor union or engaged in union activities. The act of the employer presenting a release‑of‑claims agreement to the worker and requesting consent also cannot be regarded as stemming from an intention to be involved in or to dominate/interfere with the organization or operation of the labor union. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management/Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaners)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, relief interest · refusal of re‑employment (post‑retirement fixed‑term employment), refusal to renew fixed‑term contract, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’,” in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions related to relief interest · refusal of re‑employment (post‑retirement fixed‑term employment) in the “List of Decisions on Relief Interest · Refusal of Re‑Employment (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article