Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Expectation of Re-employment after Mandatory Retirement (Managerial Employees)” (Unfair Dismissal 564)
- Date2026/07/23 04:04
- Read 15
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement (managerial employees).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae329 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-26 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The work rules for managerial employees, the general work rules, and the personnel management regulations did not contain any mandatory provision requiring the employer to re-employ managerial employees who had reached the mandatory retirement age upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Re-employment of managerial employees after mandatory retirement falls within the employer’s discretion, and there was no established practice of re-employing managerial employees after retirement at the company. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that employees had any legitimate expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a managerial employee wished to continue working even after reaching the mandatory retirement age. When the company declined to re-employ him, he claimed that this constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The employee argued that, based on the company’s work rules, personnel management regulations, and existing practices, he had a “legitimate expectation” of being re-employed after retirement. The employer, on the other hand, argued that whether to re-employ an employee after mandatory retirement is entirely within the employer’s discretion.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where there is no explicit mandatory provision on post-retirement re-employment in the work rules for managerial employees, the general work rules, or the personnel management regulations, a managerial employee can be recognized as having an expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement, and further, whether refusal to re-employ after retirement constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel held that none of the work rules for managerial employees, the general work rules, or the personnel management regulations contained any mandatory provision requiring the company to re-employ managerial employees who had reached the mandatory retirement age upon satisfaction of certain conditions; that, in principle, whether to re-employ an employee who has reached the mandatory retirement age falls within the employer’s discretion in personnel and management matters; and that there was no evidence that a uniform practice of re-employing managerial employees after retirement had been established at the company.
Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that the employee had any legitimate expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement, and the mere fact that re-employment did not occur cannot, by itself, be regarded as unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if you wish to continue working after reaching the mandatory retirement age, you should be aware that, if the work rules, collective agreement, or employment contract do not explicitly set out an “obligation to re-employ after retirement” or specify the “conditions and procedures for concluding a fixed-term (rehire) contract,” it will be difficult to demand re-employment based solely on expectations or informal practices. However, if the company has, through explicit provisions or consistent practice, in effect guaranteed extension of the retirement age or re-employment, there may be room to recognize a corresponding expectation right to re-employment or contract renewal. You should therefore carefully review the specific rules and the way they are actually implemented in practice.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important for preventing disputes to clearly stipulate in the work rules, personnel regulations, and collective agreements how the company will operate its systems on mandatory retirement and post-retirement fixed-term or re-employment, and to ensure that actual practice is consistent with those rules. In particular, if the company exceptionally allows post-retirement re-employment only for certain individuals, it should document the reasons and criteria, and manage the process so that it does not solidify into a general and repetitive practice. Otherwise, issues such as alleged expectation rights to re-employment or claims of discrimination may arise in the future.
This decision by the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission reconfirms that, in principle, whether to re-employ an employee after mandatory retirement lies within the employer’s discretion, and that, for any “right to demand extension of the retirement age” or “expectation of re-employment” to be recognized, there must be a legal basis such as work rules, a collective agreement, a labor-management agreement, or a clear and consistent practice. Anyone considering filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission should first conduct a detailed review of their own rules, contracts, and practices together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The work rules for managerial employees, the general work rules, and the personnel management regulations did not contain any mandatory provision requiring the company to re-employ managerial employees who had reached the mandatory retirement age upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Re-employment of managerial employees after mandatory retirement falls within the employer’s discretion, and there was no established practice of re-employing managerial employees at the company. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that employees had any legitimate expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The work rules for managerial employees, the general work rules, and the personnel management regulations did not contain any mandatory provision requiring the company to re-employ managerial employees who had reached the mandatory retirement age upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Re-employment of managerial employees after mandatory retirement falls within the employer’s discretion, and there was no established practice of re-employing managerial employees at the company. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that employees had any legitimate expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non-formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement (managerial employees), mandatory retirement, 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 Case Concerning ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Use of Remaining Ready-mixed Concrete)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement (managerial employees) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Expectation of Re-employment after Mandatory Retirement (Managerial Employees).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement (managerial employees).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae329 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-26 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The work rules for managerial employees, the general work rules, and the personnel management regulations did not contain any mandatory provision requiring the employer to re-employ managerial employees who had reached the mandatory retirement age upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Re-employment of managerial employees after mandatory retirement falls within the employer’s discretion, and there was no established practice of re-employing managerial employees after retirement at the company. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that employees had any legitimate expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a managerial employee wished to continue working even after reaching the mandatory retirement age. When the company declined to re-employ him, he claimed that this constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The employee argued that, based on the company’s work rules, personnel management regulations, and existing practices, he had a “legitimate expectation” of being re-employed after retirement. The employer, on the other hand, argued that whether to re-employ an employee after mandatory retirement is entirely within the employer’s discretion.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where there is no explicit mandatory provision on post-retirement re-employment in the work rules for managerial employees, the general work rules, or the personnel management regulations, a managerial employee can be recognized as having an expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement, and further, whether refusal to re-employ after retirement constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel held that none of the work rules for managerial employees, the general work rules, or the personnel management regulations contained any mandatory provision requiring the company to re-employ managerial employees who had reached the mandatory retirement age upon satisfaction of certain conditions; that, in principle, whether to re-employ an employee who has reached the mandatory retirement age falls within the employer’s discretion in personnel and management matters; and that there was no evidence that a uniform practice of re-employing managerial employees after retirement had been established at the company.
Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that the employee had any legitimate expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement, and the mere fact that re-employment did not occur cannot, by itself, be regarded as unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if you wish to continue working after reaching the mandatory retirement age, you should be aware that, if the work rules, collective agreement, or employment contract do not explicitly set out an “obligation to re-employ after retirement” or specify the “conditions and procedures for concluding a fixed-term (rehire) contract,” it will be difficult to demand re-employment based solely on expectations or informal practices. However, if the company has, through explicit provisions or consistent practice, in effect guaranteed extension of the retirement age or re-employment, there may be room to recognize a corresponding expectation right to re-employment or contract renewal. You should therefore carefully review the specific rules and the way they are actually implemented in practice.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important for preventing disputes to clearly stipulate in the work rules, personnel regulations, and collective agreements how the company will operate its systems on mandatory retirement and post-retirement fixed-term or re-employment, and to ensure that actual practice is consistent with those rules. In particular, if the company exceptionally allows post-retirement re-employment only for certain individuals, it should document the reasons and criteria, and manage the process so that it does not solidify into a general and repetitive practice. Otherwise, issues such as alleged expectation rights to re-employment or claims of discrimination may arise in the future.
This decision by the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission reconfirms that, in principle, whether to re-employ an employee after mandatory retirement lies within the employer’s discretion, and that, for any “right to demand extension of the retirement age” or “expectation of re-employment” to be recognized, there must be a legal basis such as work rules, a collective agreement, a labor-management agreement, or a clear and consistent practice. Anyone considering filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission should first conduct a detailed review of their own rules, contracts, and practices together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The work rules for managerial employees, the general work rules, and the personnel management regulations did not contain any mandatory provision requiring the company to re-employ managerial employees who had reached the mandatory retirement age upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Re-employment of managerial employees after mandatory retirement falls within the employer’s discretion, and there was no established practice of re-employing managerial employees at the company. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that employees had any legitimate expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The work rules for managerial employees, the general work rules, and the personnel management regulations did not contain any mandatory provision requiring the company to re-employ managerial employees who had reached the mandatory retirement age upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Re-employment of managerial employees after mandatory retirement falls within the employer’s discretion, and there was no established practice of re-employing managerial employees at the company. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that employees had any legitimate expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non-formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement (managerial employees), mandatory retirement, 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 Case Concerning ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Use of Remaining Ready-mixed Concrete)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of re-employment after mandatory retirement (managerial employees) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Expectation of Re-employment after Mandatory Retirement (Managerial Employees).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
