Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision Precedent on “Dismissal (Failure to Comply with Amendment Order)” in Unfair Dismissal Cases (Unfair Dismissal 10)
- Date2025/12/29 16:18
- Read 242
An unfair dismissal relief application case proceeded in relation to “dismissal (failure to comply with amendment order),” in which the employer prevailed. I would like to share this decision and its legal implications. In this case, the matter was dismissed at the Labor Relations Commission stage on procedural grounds before reaching any substantive determination on the legitimacy of the unfair dismissal itself. This has particular significance for those using the Labor Relations Commission’s relief procedures. Similar situations frequently arise in unfair dismissal, Labor Relations Commission, and Labor Law Firm Law& practice, so please also review the procedural principles that commonly apply to other types of cases such as collective redundancies.
1. Legal Implications
The key issue in this case was: “Where the Labor Relations Commission has repeatedly requested amendments and provided guidance, but the employee does not comply, may the Commission dismiss the unfair dismissal relief application pursuant to Article 60 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules?”
The decision panel found that: despite the Labor Relations Commission having made two or more requests to the employee to amend the contents of the relief application, the employee made no amendments whatsoever; despite the Commission having notified the employee of the omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner adjudication and having thereby afforded an opportunity to submit opinions, the employee submitted no opinions in response; and, in light of such conduct, it was reasonable to determine that the employee no longer had any intention to seek relief through the Labor Relations Commission procedure.
Although there was some room to view that the employee had a basic intention to contest the unfairness of the dismissal, and despite the employee’s argument that he or she was not accustomed to preparing documents and therefore could not comply with the amendment requests,
the panel held that, because the dismissal in this case failed to satisfy the procedural requirements for a valid relief application at the Labor Relations Commission stage and therefore did not reach the stage of substantive review, the employee’s relief application fell under a ground for dismissal.
In practice, it is crucial to note that, even after filing an unfair dismissal relief application, the applicant must satisfy and continue to maintain the application requirements. Article 60(1)2 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules expressly provides that, where a party fails to comply with an amendment request on two or more occasions, the application may be dismissed. This constitutes a “procedural gateway” separate from the issue of whether the dismissal itself was justified. Accordingly, if you intend to contest an unfair dismissal or collective redundancy, you must respond faithfully and within the prescribed deadlines to any requests for amendment, attendance, or submission of opinions. If this is difficult, you should, from the initial stage, seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to systematically prepare the application and amendment documents, organize evidence, and respond to procedural steps.
2. Holding
Because the Labor Relations Commission made two or more requests to the employee to amend the relief application but the employee did not comply, and because the employee did not submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner adjudication, the Commission determined that the employee had no intention to pursue the relief application. Accordingly, the case fell under a ground for dismissal pursuant to Article 60(1)2 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules.
3. Summary of Decision
Because the Labor Relations Commission made two or more requests to the employee to amend the relief application but the employee did not comply, and because the employee did not submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner adjudication, the Commission determined that the employee had no intention to pursue the relief application. Accordingly, the case fell under a ground for dismissal pursuant to Article 60(1)2 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules. /
1. Legal Implications
The key issue in this case was: “Where the Labor Relations Commission has repeatedly requested amendments and provided guidance, but the employee does not comply, may the Commission dismiss the unfair dismissal relief application pursuant to Article 60 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules?”
The decision panel found that: despite the Labor Relations Commission having made two or more requests to the employee to amend the contents of the relief application, the employee made no amendments whatsoever; despite the Commission having notified the employee of the omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner adjudication and having thereby afforded an opportunity to submit opinions, the employee submitted no opinions in response; and, in light of such conduct, it was reasonable to determine that the employee no longer had any intention to seek relief through the Labor Relations Commission procedure.
Although there was some room to view that the employee had a basic intention to contest the unfairness of the dismissal, and despite the employee’s argument that he or she was not accustomed to preparing documents and therefore could not comply with the amendment requests,
the panel held that, because the dismissal in this case failed to satisfy the procedural requirements for a valid relief application at the Labor Relations Commission stage and therefore did not reach the stage of substantive review, the employee’s relief application fell under a ground for dismissal.
In practice, it is crucial to note that, even after filing an unfair dismissal relief application, the applicant must satisfy and continue to maintain the application requirements. Article 60(1)2 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules expressly provides that, where a party fails to comply with an amendment request on two or more occasions, the application may be dismissed. This constitutes a “procedural gateway” separate from the issue of whether the dismissal itself was justified. Accordingly, if you intend to contest an unfair dismissal or collective redundancy, you must respond faithfully and within the prescribed deadlines to any requests for amendment, attendance, or submission of opinions. If this is difficult, you should, from the initial stage, seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to systematically prepare the application and amendment documents, organize evidence, and respond to procedural steps.
2. Holding
Because the Labor Relations Commission made two or more requests to the employee to amend the relief application but the employee did not comply, and because the employee did not submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner adjudication, the Commission determined that the employee had no intention to pursue the relief application. Accordingly, the case fell under a ground for dismissal pursuant to Article 60(1)2 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules.
3. Summary of Decision
Because the Labor Relations Commission made two or more requests to the employee to amend the relief application but the employee did not comply, and because the employee did not submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner adjudication, the Commission determined that the employee had no intention to pursue the relief application. Accordingly, the case fell under a ground for dismissal pursuant to Article 60(1)2 of the Labor Relations Commission Rules. /
