Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Interpretation of Scope of Application (Skilled Re‑Employment System)” (Unfair Dismissal 565)
- Date2026/07/23 04:08
- Read 15
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “interpretation of scope of application (skilled re‑employment system).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae331 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-26 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The skilled re‑employment system is based on a labor‑management agreement concluded as an adjunct to the collective agreement between the labor union and the employer, and it is reasonable to interpret its scope of application as identical to the scope of application of the collective agreement; the employee was a managerial employee in the position of “responsible manager” and therefore did not qualify as a union member under the collective agreement, making it difficult to regard him as subject to the skilled re‑employment system; and no cases were identified in which managerial employees had been re‑employed under the skilled re‑employment system. In light of all these circumstances, ...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer treated the employee as having retired on the ground that he had reached the mandatory retirement age. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that the skilled re‑employment system should apply to him. He argued that he should also be eligible for the skilled re‑employment system based on the collective agreement, and therefore termination of the employment relationship solely on the ground of reaching the retirement age was unfair.
The Labor Relations Commission examined whether the retirement at mandatory retirement age in this case constituted an unfair dismissal, taking into account the legal basis of the skilled re‑employment system, the scope of application of the collective agreement, and the actual re‑employment practices.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a skilled re‑employment system, established by a labor‑management agreement ancillary to a collective agreement, also applies to managerial employees (responsible managers) who do not qualify as union members under the collective agreement, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation of re‑employment.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the skilled re‑employment system is based on a labor‑management agreement concluded as an adjunct to the collective agreement between the labor union and the employer; that in such circumstances it is reasonable to interpret the scope of application of the re‑employment system as identical to the scope within which the collective agreement has normative effect; that the employee, as a managerial employee in the position of responsible manager, did not qualify as a union member under the collective agreement and thus is difficult to regard as being subject to the skilled re‑employment system; and that no cases were identified in which managerial employees had been re‑employed under the skilled re‑employment system. In light of all these factors,
the Commission determined that it is difficult to recognize that the employee had a legitimate expectation of re‑employment under the skilled re‑employment system.
The dismissal in this case was a termination of the employment relationship by the employer on the ground that the employee had reached the mandatory retirement age prescribed in the rules of employment and the collective agreement, and in the absence of any separate expectation of re‑employment, it must be regarded as a lawful retirement at mandatory retirement age.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to assert a right to re‑employment after reaching the mandatory retirement age, it is important to prove that there are re‑employment provisions in the collective agreement, rules of employment, or labor‑management agreements that extend to his or her status, and that an actual practice of re‑employing employees in comparable positions has been established. In particular, managerial or executive‑level employees who are not union members should be aware that it is difficult to assume that various benefits or re‑employment systems under the collective agreement will automatically apply to them.
If your retirement age is approaching, you should check in advance the scope of eligible persons and the conditions for any post‑retirement employment retention schemes, such as a skilled re‑employment system or fixed‑term (contract) employment after retirement. Where necessary, obtain written guidance or a clear written response on whether such schemes apply to you from the HR department or the labor union.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly stipulate in the collective agreement, rules of employment, and internal regulations the legal basis and scope of application of systems premised on employment after mandatory retirement, such as a skilled re‑employment system. In particular, to prevent unnecessary disputes, the wording of the provisions and operational guidelines should clearly state whether the system is exclusively for union members or is also extended to managerial employees and non‑union members.
In addition, if, in actual operation, a practice is formed of repeatedly granting re‑employment to a particular rank or group, there is a risk that such practice may be evaluated as creating a legitimate expectation of re‑employment. It is therefore advisable to maintain consistency between the design and operation of the system and to establish criteria in advance for managing exceptional cases of re‑employment.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The skilled re‑employment system is based on a labor‑management agreement concluded as an adjunct to the collective agreement between the labor union and the employer, and it is reasonable to interpret its scope of application as identical to the scope of application of the collective agreement. The employee was a managerial employee in the position of responsible manager and therefore did not qualify as a union member under the collective agreement, making it difficult to regard him as subject to the skilled re‑employment system. No cases were identified in which managerial employees had been re‑employed under the skilled re‑employment system. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the employee had a legitimate expectation of re‑employment under the skilled re‑employment system, and thus the employer’s termination of the employment relationship on the ground of reaching the mandatory retirement age is lawful.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The skilled re‑employment system is based on a labor‑management agreement concluded as an adjunct to the collective agreement between the labor union and the employer, and it is reasonable to interpret its scope of application as identical to the scope of application of the collective agreement. The employee was a managerial employee in the position of responsible manager and therefore did not qualify as a union member under the collective agreement, making it difficult to regard him as subject to the skilled re‑employment system. No cases were identified in which managerial employees had been re‑employed under the skilled re‑employment system. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the employee had a legitimate expectation of re‑employment under the skilled re‑employment system, and thus the employer’s termination of the employment relationship on the ground of reaching the mandatory retirement age is lawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Re‑Employment After Mandatory Retirement (Managerial Employee)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, interpretation of scope of application (skilled re‑employment system), retirement at mandatory retirement age, re‑employment · expectation of re‑employment, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Re‑Employment After Mandatory Retirement (Managerial Employee)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to interpretation of scope of application (skilled re‑employment system) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Interpretation of Scope of Application (Skilled Re‑Employment System).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “interpretation of scope of application (skilled re‑employment system).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae331 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-26 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The skilled re‑employment system is based on a labor‑management agreement concluded as an adjunct to the collective agreement between the labor union and the employer, and it is reasonable to interpret its scope of application as identical to the scope of application of the collective agreement; the employee was a managerial employee in the position of “responsible manager” and therefore did not qualify as a union member under the collective agreement, making it difficult to regard him as subject to the skilled re‑employment system; and no cases were identified in which managerial employees had been re‑employed under the skilled re‑employment system. In light of all these circumstances, ...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer treated the employee as having retired on the ground that he had reached the mandatory retirement age. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that the skilled re‑employment system should apply to him. He argued that he should also be eligible for the skilled re‑employment system based on the collective agreement, and therefore termination of the employment relationship solely on the ground of reaching the retirement age was unfair.
The Labor Relations Commission examined whether the retirement at mandatory retirement age in this case constituted an unfair dismissal, taking into account the legal basis of the skilled re‑employment system, the scope of application of the collective agreement, and the actual re‑employment practices.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a skilled re‑employment system, established by a labor‑management agreement ancillary to a collective agreement, also applies to managerial employees (responsible managers) who do not qualify as union members under the collective agreement, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation of re‑employment.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the skilled re‑employment system is based on a labor‑management agreement concluded as an adjunct to the collective agreement between the labor union and the employer; that in such circumstances it is reasonable to interpret the scope of application of the re‑employment system as identical to the scope within which the collective agreement has normative effect; that the employee, as a managerial employee in the position of responsible manager, did not qualify as a union member under the collective agreement and thus is difficult to regard as being subject to the skilled re‑employment system; and that no cases were identified in which managerial employees had been re‑employed under the skilled re‑employment system. In light of all these factors,
the Commission determined that it is difficult to recognize that the employee had a legitimate expectation of re‑employment under the skilled re‑employment system.
The dismissal in this case was a termination of the employment relationship by the employer on the ground that the employee had reached the mandatory retirement age prescribed in the rules of employment and the collective agreement, and in the absence of any separate expectation of re‑employment, it must be regarded as a lawful retirement at mandatory retirement age.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to assert a right to re‑employment after reaching the mandatory retirement age, it is important to prove that there are re‑employment provisions in the collective agreement, rules of employment, or labor‑management agreements that extend to his or her status, and that an actual practice of re‑employing employees in comparable positions has been established. In particular, managerial or executive‑level employees who are not union members should be aware that it is difficult to assume that various benefits or re‑employment systems under the collective agreement will automatically apply to them.
If your retirement age is approaching, you should check in advance the scope of eligible persons and the conditions for any post‑retirement employment retention schemes, such as a skilled re‑employment system or fixed‑term (contract) employment after retirement. Where necessary, obtain written guidance or a clear written response on whether such schemes apply to you from the HR department or the labor union.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly stipulate in the collective agreement, rules of employment, and internal regulations the legal basis and scope of application of systems premised on employment after mandatory retirement, such as a skilled re‑employment system. In particular, to prevent unnecessary disputes, the wording of the provisions and operational guidelines should clearly state whether the system is exclusively for union members or is also extended to managerial employees and non‑union members.
In addition, if, in actual operation, a practice is formed of repeatedly granting re‑employment to a particular rank or group, there is a risk that such practice may be evaluated as creating a legitimate expectation of re‑employment. It is therefore advisable to maintain consistency between the design and operation of the system and to establish criteria in advance for managing exceptional cases of re‑employment.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The skilled re‑employment system is based on a labor‑management agreement concluded as an adjunct to the collective agreement between the labor union and the employer, and it is reasonable to interpret its scope of application as identical to the scope of application of the collective agreement. The employee was a managerial employee in the position of responsible manager and therefore did not qualify as a union member under the collective agreement, making it difficult to regard him as subject to the skilled re‑employment system. No cases were identified in which managerial employees had been re‑employed under the skilled re‑employment system. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the employee had a legitimate expectation of re‑employment under the skilled re‑employment system, and thus the employer’s termination of the employment relationship on the ground of reaching the mandatory retirement age is lawful.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The skilled re‑employment system is based on a labor‑management agreement concluded as an adjunct to the collective agreement between the labor union and the employer, and it is reasonable to interpret its scope of application as identical to the scope of application of the collective agreement. The employee was a managerial employee in the position of responsible manager and therefore did not qualify as a union member under the collective agreement, making it difficult to regard him as subject to the skilled re‑employment system. No cases were identified in which managerial employees had been re‑employed under the skilled re‑employment system. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the employee had a legitimate expectation of re‑employment under the skilled re‑employment system, and thus the employer’s termination of the employment relationship on the ground of reaching the mandatory retirement age is lawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Re‑Employment After Mandatory Retirement (Managerial Employee)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, interpretation of scope of application (skilled re‑employment system), retirement at mandatory retirement age, re‑employment · expectation of re‑employment, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Re‑Employment After Mandatory Retirement (Managerial Employee)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to interpretation of scope of application (skilled re‑employment system) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Interpretation of Scope of Application (Skilled Re‑Employment System).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
