Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Dismissal for Unauthorised Absence (Probationary Employee’s Non‑Compliance with Reinstatement Order)” (Unfair Dismissal 544)
- Date2026/07/15 04:07
- Read 27
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision on the issue of “dismissal for unauthorised absence (probationary employee’s non‑compliance with reinstatement order),” in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed).
Adjudicating body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2026BuHae86 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026‑05‑29 · Outcome: Application dismissed
Key issue summary:
(a) Where an employee fails to comply with a reinstatement order and does not report for work for a considerable period, such conduct constitutes unauthorised absence as defined in the rules of employment and falls under the grounds for dismissal and discipline stipulated therein.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a probationary employee failed to comply with the company’s reinstatement order and did not report for work for a considerable period. The company imposed disciplinary dismissal on the ground of unauthorised absence under its rules of employment, and the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission assessed the legitimacy of the dismissal by comprehensively considering the provisions of the rules of employment, the employee’s past work attitude, and the circumstances surrounding the prolonged absence following the reinstatement order.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a disciplinary dismissal based on the rules of employment provisions on unauthorised absence is justified in respect of a probationary employee who failed to comply with a reinstatement order and did not report for work for a considerable period.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employer’s reinstatement order constituted a legitimate work instruction grounded in the employment contract and the rules of employment; that the employee’s failure to comply and continued unauthorised absence for a considerable period clearly fell within the grounds for dismissal and discipline under the rules of employment; and that, even during the probationary period, the employee had repeatedly failed to observe working hours and had left work early without permission, had previously been notified of dismissal on that basis, and had nonetheless failed to comply with multiple subsequent orders to report for work and disciplinary warnings.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was based on reasons attributable to the employee that seriously undermined workplace order to the extent that, under social norms, the employment relationship could not reasonably be expected to continue. The dismissal therefore did not constitute unfair dismissal, and there were justifiable grounds for disciplinary dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that if they fail to comply with legitimate work instructions such as reinstatement orders or orders to report for work and, instead, do not report for work for an extended period, this may constitute a legitimate ground for dismissal for unauthorised absence under the rules of employment, irrespective of any underlying labor dispute. In particular, during the probationary period, the scope for recognizing grounds for dismissal tends to be relatively broad. Therefore, even if you are considering filing an application for relief from unfair dismissal, it is advisable first to clearly express your intention to report for work and to provide labor, and to pursue the dispute procedurally through the Labor Relations Commission or experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment that unauthorised absence and non‑compliance with reinstatement orders constitute grounds for dismissal and discipline, and, in practice, to issue reinstatement orders and orders to report for work multiple times in writing or in another recordable form so that the process of “warning – order – dismissal” can be objectively substantiated. In addition, even for probationary employees, employers should systematically accumulate records regarding attendance management and warnings for unauthorised early departures or absences, as this will increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of any redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) The employee’s failure to comply with the reinstatement order and not reporting for work for a considerable period constitutes unauthorised absence as defined in the rules of employment and falls under the grounds for dismissal and discipline stipulated therein. Furthermore, the employee’s unauthorised absence is contrary to workplace order and constitutes a reason attributable to the employee that, under social norms, makes it impossible to continue the employment relationship. Accordingly, there are justifiable grounds for disciplinary dismissal.
(b) Despite being in the probationary period, the employee continuously and repeatedly failed to observe working hours and left work early without permission and had previously been notified of dismissal on that basis; and even though the employer issued multiple orders to report for work and warnings regarding the possibility of discipline, the employee, for a considerable period …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) The employee’s failure to comply with the reinstatement order and not reporting for work for a considerable period constitutes unauthorised absence as defined in the rules of employment and falls under the grounds for dismissal and discipline stipulated therein. Furthermore, the employee’s unauthorised absence is contrary to workplace order and constitutes a reason attributable to the employee that, under social norms, makes it impossible to continue the employment relationship. Accordingly, there are justifiable grounds for disciplinary dismissal.
(b) Despite being in the probationary period, the employee continuously and repeatedly failed to observe working hours and left work early without permission and had previously been notified of dismissal on that basis; and even though the employer issued multiple orders to report for work and warnings regarding the possibility of discipline, the employee, for a considerable period … /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal Rejected (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Application rejected
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal for unauthorised absence (probationary employee’s non‑compliance with reinstatement order), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorised absence, dismissal during trial period, 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 ‘Requirement of Written Notice (Unilateral Termination Before Expiry of Fixed Term)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to dismissal for unauthorised absence (probationary employee’s non‑compliance with reinstatement order) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Dismissal for Unauthorised Absence (Probationary Employee’s Non‑Compliance with Reinstatement Order)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Adjudicating body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2026BuHae86 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026‑05‑29 · Outcome: Application dismissed
Key issue summary:
(a) Where an employee fails to comply with a reinstatement order and does not report for work for a considerable period, such conduct constitutes unauthorised absence as defined in the rules of employment and falls under the grounds for dismissal and discipline stipulated therein.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a probationary employee failed to comply with the company’s reinstatement order and did not report for work for a considerable period. The company imposed disciplinary dismissal on the ground of unauthorised absence under its rules of employment, and the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission assessed the legitimacy of the dismissal by comprehensively considering the provisions of the rules of employment, the employee’s past work attitude, and the circumstances surrounding the prolonged absence following the reinstatement order.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a disciplinary dismissal based on the rules of employment provisions on unauthorised absence is justified in respect of a probationary employee who failed to comply with a reinstatement order and did not report for work for a considerable period.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employer’s reinstatement order constituted a legitimate work instruction grounded in the employment contract and the rules of employment; that the employee’s failure to comply and continued unauthorised absence for a considerable period clearly fell within the grounds for dismissal and discipline under the rules of employment; and that, even during the probationary period, the employee had repeatedly failed to observe working hours and had left work early without permission, had previously been notified of dismissal on that basis, and had nonetheless failed to comply with multiple subsequent orders to report for work and disciplinary warnings.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was based on reasons attributable to the employee that seriously undermined workplace order to the extent that, under social norms, the employment relationship could not reasonably be expected to continue. The dismissal therefore did not constitute unfair dismissal, and there were justifiable grounds for disciplinary dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that if they fail to comply with legitimate work instructions such as reinstatement orders or orders to report for work and, instead, do not report for work for an extended period, this may constitute a legitimate ground for dismissal for unauthorised absence under the rules of employment, irrespective of any underlying labor dispute. In particular, during the probationary period, the scope for recognizing grounds for dismissal tends to be relatively broad. Therefore, even if you are considering filing an application for relief from unfair dismissal, it is advisable first to clearly express your intention to report for work and to provide labor, and to pursue the dispute procedurally through the Labor Relations Commission or experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment that unauthorised absence and non‑compliance with reinstatement orders constitute grounds for dismissal and discipline, and, in practice, to issue reinstatement orders and orders to report for work multiple times in writing or in another recordable form so that the process of “warning – order – dismissal” can be objectively substantiated. In addition, even for probationary employees, employers should systematically accumulate records regarding attendance management and warnings for unauthorised early departures or absences, as this will increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of any redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) The employee’s failure to comply with the reinstatement order and not reporting for work for a considerable period constitutes unauthorised absence as defined in the rules of employment and falls under the grounds for dismissal and discipline stipulated therein. Furthermore, the employee’s unauthorised absence is contrary to workplace order and constitutes a reason attributable to the employee that, under social norms, makes it impossible to continue the employment relationship. Accordingly, there are justifiable grounds for disciplinary dismissal.
(b) Despite being in the probationary period, the employee continuously and repeatedly failed to observe working hours and left work early without permission and had previously been notified of dismissal on that basis; and even though the employer issued multiple orders to report for work and warnings regarding the possibility of discipline, the employee, for a considerable period …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) The employee’s failure to comply with the reinstatement order and not reporting for work for a considerable period constitutes unauthorised absence as defined in the rules of employment and falls under the grounds for dismissal and discipline stipulated therein. Furthermore, the employee’s unauthorised absence is contrary to workplace order and constitutes a reason attributable to the employee that, under social norms, makes it impossible to continue the employment relationship. Accordingly, there are justifiable grounds for disciplinary dismissal.
(b) Despite being in the probationary period, the employee continuously and repeatedly failed to observe working hours and left work early without permission and had previously been notified of dismissal on that basis; and even though the employer issued multiple orders to report for work and warnings regarding the possibility of discipline, the employee, for a considerable period … /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal Rejected (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Application rejected
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal for unauthorised absence (probationary employee’s non‑compliance with reinstatement order), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorised absence, dismissal during trial period, 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 ‘Requirement of Written Notice (Unilateral Termination Before Expiry of Fixed Term)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to dismissal for unauthorised absence (probationary employee’s non‑compliance with reinstatement order) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Dismissal for Unauthorised Absence (Probationary Employee’s Non‑Compliance with Reinstatement Order)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
