Unfair Dismissal Litigation | Final Appeal Dismissed, Remedy Judgment Upheld

🔗Unfair dismissal means a dismissal without just cause.

If an employer dismisses a worker without just cause, the worker may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy.

The matters for which a remedy may be sought from the Labor Relations Commission for unfair dismissal include ▲where the dismissal was carried out without just cause, ▲where the requirements limiting dismissal for managerial reasons were not met, ▲where the dismissal violated a specific statutory ground prohibiting dismissal, ▲where the dismissal involved excessive disciplinary weighing despite there being no ground warranting dismissal, ▲where the dismissal violated the dismissal procedures set out in statute, a collective agreement, or work rules, and ▲where the dismissal was carried out during a period in which dismissal is not allowed.

The remedy procedure for unfair dismissal, through an application for remedy to the Labor Relations Commission and the filing of an administrative suit, proceeds in the order of application for remedy, investigation, examination, ruling, (reexamination or administrative litigation), confirmation, and conclusion.

An employer or a worker may, within 15 days from the date of service of the reexamination decision, file a suit under the Administrative Litigation Act against the National Labor Relations Commission's reexamination decision.

An employer or a worker who has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the National Labor Relations Commission's reexamination decision may file a revocation suit against that reexamination decision.

In such a case, the revocation suit names the Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission as the defendant.

The defendant's intervenor, who filed the final appeal, argued that the client's frequent friction with coworkers showed the client's work attitude was poor and asserted this as one of the grounds for dismissal.

The client's attorney again argued that the employees who had worked with the client at the time had previously prepared and submitted statements to the effect that the client had worked diligently in the case on the application for remedy against unfair dismissal.

The attorney also argued that the client had previously reported the intervenor's representative and managing director on suspicion of occupational breach of trust, and emphasized that it was questionable whether the representative and managing director, who recorded the work attitude evaluations, could have given the client a fair assessment.

The attorney submitted as evidence a record showing that, after the client raised the suspicion of occupational breach of trust, the intervenor's representative and managing director gave the client a score far below the minimum.

The defendant's intervenor notified the client of dismissal on the ground that the client's work performance was poor.

On this point, the lower court held that "even if a worker's work performance is poor, dismissing the worker without affording an opportunity to improve, such as through training, is difficult to recognize as justified."

The client's attorney emphasized that, given the client had worked at the intervenor's company for more than 20 years, the company had a duty to consider the client by affording sufficient opportunity to improve where the client's work performance or ability was lacking, and argued that the lower court's judgment was justified.