[Alpha Biz= Kim Young Taek] SEOUL, April 10, 2026 — South Korea’s labor authorities are facing criticism after allegations emerged that a regional labor commission dismissed a worker’s case without properly verifying key evidence submitted by the employer.

According to reports, the dispute involves a dismissed employee of Hyosung Heavy Industries, who claims that the company submitted disciplinary records with critical details — including dates and reasons — blacked out. The worker alleges that the original documents he possesses contradict the company’s claims.

Despite this, investigators at the Seoul Regional Labor Commission reportedly did not conduct additional verification procedures, such as cross-checking original documents or confirming factual details.

Based on the employer’s submission, which stated that the disciplinary action took effect on October 22 of the relevant year, the commission determined that the three-month filing deadline for remedy had expired and dismissed the case. However, the worker claims he was formally notified of the disciplinary action in December, which would place his filing within the allowable period.

 

Under the Labor Relations Commission Act, investigators have both the authority and obligation to conduct ex officio investigations when necessary to verify facts. Legal experts say confirming the date of disciplinary action is a fundamental step in determining whether a case meets filing requirements.

An official from the commission, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that verifying disciplinary dates is typically a top-priority procedure, especially when submitted evidence contains redactions.

However, the commission stated in its response to a lawmaker’s inquiry that additional verification was unnecessary because other evidence was sufficient — a position that appears to contradict its earlier notice to the worker that the case was dismissed solely due to the filing deadline.

Legal experts have criticized the decision, arguing that failing to verify potentially altered or incomplete evidence constitutes a serious procedural flaw. They noted that such deficiencies could serve as grounds for overturning the ruling through a retrial at the National Labor Relations Commission or an administrative lawsuit.

The case has raised broader concerns about fairness and due process within labor dispute resolution mechanisms, with calls for stricter oversight to prevent similar incidents.

 

 

 

[ⓒ 알파경제. 무단전재-재배포 금지]