In response to the claim that “the notice of dismissal was unfair without specifying the facts,” the court said, “Recognition of the reason is sufficient.”

The court ruled that even if the facts were not detailed in the notice of dismissal, it was not a problem if the parties were fully aware of the reasons for dismissal.

According to the legal community on the 10th, the 2nd Administrative Department of the Daejeon High Court recently ruled that the plaintiff lost in an administrative lawsuit to cancel the retrial decision for unfair dismissal relief filed by employee A of a pig farming company against the Central Labor Relations Commission.

Mr. A and others were indicted on charges of selling pork containing pus to a meat packaging company in 2017 and were sentenced to suspended prison sentences. Afterwards, the company dismissed Mr. A and others ex officio in accordance with the company's personnel policy that states, "Anyone who has received a sentence of imprisonment or heavier cannot be appointed as an employee."

Mr. A and others objected to this and filed two applications for relief from unfair dismissal to the Labor Relations Commission. However, when all were rejected, an administrative lawsuit was filed seeking cancellation of this decision.

At trial, Mr. A and others argued that there were procedural problems in the dismissal process. The dismissal decision was not approved by the personnel committee, and the company only provided notice of dismissal and did not provide final notice of dismissal. The company countered that in the case of dismissal due to ex officio dismissal, only 30 days advance notice is required according to the regulations.

The first trial ruled that it was correct to dismiss the National Labor Relations Commission's application for relief, saying, "According to the personnel regulations, in the case of dismissal that is a cause for disqualification, there is no need to go through a resolution by the personnel committee. Additionally, a 30-day advance notice of dismissal and a written notification of the reason and timing of dismissal are sufficient. However, since the management sent a preliminary notice of dismissal, it cannot be considered that there is a procedural illegality."

Then, Mr. A and others appealed, saying that the reason for dismissal in the notice received only included the phrase ‘a sentence of imprisonment or a heavier sentence has been confirmed’ and that there were still procedural problems as no specific facts were stated.

However, the appellate court also ruled that there were no problems with the dismissal procedure. The appellate court ruled, “Considering that Mr. A and others were notified of dismissal after the confirmation of probation and continued to apply for relief by attending the Labor Relations Commission, and that they had not committed any other crimes before receiving the notice, it is reasonable to assume that they knew that the criminal judgment in the case was used as a reason for dismissal,” and “Even if the reason for dismissal was briefly stated, it cannot be considered that there was a procedural defect.”

Lee Ki-jun, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm who represented the company as an auxiliary defendant in this case, said, "If the dismissed party knew the reason for the dismissal and was able to respond, it cannot be said to be a notice of dismissal in violation of the Labor Standards Act even if the reason was not stated in detail. It was accepted that Mr. A and others were clearly aware of the reason by actively responding after receiving the notice, so it could be recognized as a legitimate dismissal procedure."

Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook

[View full article]
Court says recognition of cause is sufficient for claim of “unfair notice of dismissal without stating facts” (Shortcut)