Before Unfair Dismissal Relief Application, 'Closure'... Supreme Court: "No Benefit of Relief"

Court: "Termination of 'Employment Contract Relationship' Regardless of Unfairness of Dismissal Due to Closure or Other Reasons"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has made its first ruling that if a workplace is closed or the employee reaches retirement age before filing an unfair dismissal relief application, making it impossible to restore the employment relationship, there is no 'benefit of relief' for unfair dismissal.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Noh Tae-ak) announced on the 3rd that it overturned the lower court's ruling in favor of plaintiff A, a beautician working at a military unit, who filed an appeal against the Central Labor Commission Chairman's dismissal of his unfair dismissal relief reconsideration ruling, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

A entered into a one-year employment contract with the commander of the Army B Division in August 2014 to open a barber shop for officers. The contract was renewed twice until August 2016 and then converted into an indefinite employment contract. Subsequently, in April 2018, the B Division dismissed A, citing the closure of the barber shop due to deteriorating profitability, and the shop closed at the end of May that year.

A applied for relief at the local labor commission, but the application was dismissed on the grounds that "the workplace no longer exists, so the benefit of relief has disappeared." The Central Labor Commission also rejected the reconsideration application for the same reason, prompting A to file a lawsuit.

The key issue in the trial was whether there is a recognized benefit to apply for a relief order regarding unfair dismissal when the employment relationship cannot be restored due to closure before the unfair dismissal relief application.

Previously, the Supreme Court Grand Bench ruled that if a worker files an unfair dismissal relief application with the labor authorities and the case is ongoing, the application itself remains valid even if the employee reaches retirement age or the workplace disappears, making it impossible to restore the employment relationship.

The first trial ruled against A, but the second trial reversed the decision in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing the benefit of relief.

However, the Supreme Court's ruling differed. It held that if the employment relationship has already ended due to retirement, expiration of the employment contract period, closure, or other reasons before filing the unfair dismissal relief application, regardless of the unfairness of the dismissal, the employee's status is extinguished, and thus the benefit of receiving a labor commission relief order for unfair dismissal also disappears.

The court stated, "It should have been examined whether the closure occurred before or after the plaintiff filed the relief application, and the existence of the benefit of the lawsuit should have been determined accordingly."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.