Standard Guide: The reason why the disciplinary process is regulated in relation to disciplinary dismissal is to make sure of implementation of disciplinary rights and to promote effective operation of the disciplinary system. Therefore, disciplinary punishment in violation of the disciplinary process is null and void regardless of the justifiable reasons for discipline (Supreme Court July 9, 1991, 90da8077).


[Justification for Dismissal as Ordered by the Head Office of a Multinational Company]

“B” company (hereinafter, “the Company”) is a Korean branch office of a multinational company with its head offices in Switzerland. The employee (hereinafter, “the Employee”) had been working at the Company’s head office and Korean branch office for 27 years. He was assigned to the Korean branch office as a senior director on December 1, 2006, and signed a two year labor contract. He had adjusted to the Company very well and worked faithfully, but suddenly received a letter of dismissal on August 30, 2007. The reason for dismissal was the suspicion that when the Employee was working at the head office in 2006, he was involved in unfair price transactions with a customer. At that time he had just worked as an engineer in the sales department of the head office, and his former superiors who were involved in the case were also dismissed.

The Company did not investigate the incident thoroughly, simply dismissing the Employee immediately pursuant to orders to do so from the head office. Therefore, the Employee visited a labor attorney to seek remedy.


I. The Company’s Perspective

1. The Company shall not tolerate any cases where an employee revealed a secret, traded confidential information, or was involved in, neglected to or did not report to the company the giving or receiving of bribes. When the Company recognizes such behaviors from employees, it can terminate employment immediately. Concerning this, when new or experienced employees are assigned to a new branch office in foreign countries, they shall read a code of conduct at the time of employment and shall sign an agreement to observe it. Employees are also told during training that employment will be terminated if the employee violates the code of conduct.

2. The Company specifies reasons for disqualification in Article 9 (Limits to Employment) of the rules of employment, and its subparagraph 7 stipulates ‘other persons who are not appropriate according to the company’s discretion’. Although the incident happened before he joined the Korean branch of the Company, the Employee’s violation of the code of conduct was such a severe action that the Company would not have hired him if it had known about the violation in advance. Therefore, this termination of the labor contract will be regarded as justifiable.

Where an employee is found to have falsified or concealed his education and experience when joining the company or where such truth is found during the course of his service to the company, if the company knows of such truth at the point of recruitment, it may choose not to hire him or at least may choose not to provide the same working conditions. This assumption justifies taking appropriate disciplinary dismissal actions. (Supreme Court June 23, ’00, 98da54940)



II. The Employee’s Perspective

1. Reason for dismissal

The Employee was not responsible for the unfair price transaction while working at the head office, because he only worked as a technical advisor in the sales department. All he did was receive an email as a cc reference from the mediator concerned. B company does not have any evidence to verify the unfair transaction, but dismissed the Employee immediately pursuant to an order from the head office in Switzerland.

2. Types of disciplinary punishment

Under the rules of employment, the Company may take disciplinary action such as dismissal, discharging from duty, demotion, suspension from office, reducing wages, reprimanding, etc. according to the severity of the violation. As the Employee signed a labor contract with the Company and provided labor service under supervision and control of the employer, the Company shall punish the Employee based upon the severity of violation in accordance with its rules of employment. However, the Company took the most severe route without considering severity of the violation.

3. Disciplinary process

Article 113 of the Rules of Employment
2) The company shall establish a disciplinary action committee to determine punishments for violations.
Article 114 of the Rules of Employment
1) The disciplinary action committee shall be comprised of three members appointed by the representative director.
2) The disciplinary action committee shall hold a meeting whenever necessary. The committee shall inform the relevant employee by written notice 7 days prior to the disciplinary meeting and the alleged violator will be provided with an opportunity to defend him/herself.

The Company did not implement the disciplinary process before dismissal. Furthermore, any opportunity to verify his version of events was not given. Such disciplinary action without going through the disciplinary process is null and void, even though a justifiable reason may exist for the disciplinary punishment.


III. Related Administrative Interpretations and Judicial Rulings

1. Reason for dismissal and types of disciplinary punishment

Although the employee committed a violation of the rules of employment, if the violation is not so serious as to be unable to continue the labor contract, the dismissal becomes unfair. (May 26, 2005, Seoul Administration Court 2004 Guhap 22381)
Dismissal is justifiable only when an employee commits so serious a violation that the company cannot continue employment relations any longer. Whether the violation is a terminable offence shall be decided after considering all factors like the business target and characteristics, workplace conditions, the employee’s status and job responsibilities, motivation and context of the incident, risk of obstructing corporate order, and his/her previous work attitude.
It is too serious to be justifiable when the employer dismissed the employee due to a few reasons such as using violent language against a representative of an apartment residents’ group, refusing to submit an employee statement, and absence from the disciplinary action committee meeting. (Aug 13, 2004, NLRC 2004, Buhae 215)
Actions such as using violent language against the representative of an apartment residents’ group, refusing to submit an employee statement, and being absent from the disciplinary action committee meeting, are seen as misbehaviors because such actions disturb company operations. The company’s decision to choose dismissal, the most severe punishment, due to the aforementioned reasons is not balanced by the employee’s violations. As these employee actions are not acceptable reasons for termination, this dismissal is considered an unfair dismissal and abuse of the employer’s disciplinary right.

In terms of the employee’s absences without permission, there exists a disciplinary reason, but dismissal simply for this reason is more serious than his violation, making it an abuse of disciplinary right. (Jan 9, 2004, NLRC 2003 Buhae 587)
In considering that the employee had not been punished due to negligence or other reasons before his dismissal, such behaviors as the employee’s two absences without permission and one of leaving the workplace without authorization are not enough to justify terminating the labor contract. Therefore, the employer’s disciplinary dismissal was unreasonable.

2. Disciplinary process

Disciplinary punishment without observing disciplinary process is null and void regardless of the justifiable reasons for dismissal. (Supreme Court July 9, 1991, 90da8077)
The reason why the disciplinary process is regulated in relation to disciplinary dismissal is to ensure implementation of disciplinary rights and to promote effective operation of the disciplinary system. Therefore, disciplinary punishment in violation of the disciplinary process is null and void regardless of the justifiable reasons for discipline.

It is unfair to dismiss the employee when the company made a disciplinary decision based on an unclear rationale without going through the disciplinary process. (Jan 6, 2005, Seoul Administration Court 2004 guhap 17808)
The company states in the disciplinary operation manual that it shall issue a ‘request to appear in front of the disciplinary committee’ to the employee and provide an opportunity for the employee to explain his position for the purpose of securing objectivity and fairness. Therefore, the disciplinary process is an effective tool. The company did not issue an attendance request or provide the employee an opportunity to state his case. Furthermore, the company made a disciplinary decision for an unclear reason without specifying the reasons for dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal cannot be justifiable. This problem cannot be recovered later with the employer’s notification of the disciplinary result or the failure by the employee concerned to apply for review of the decision.


IV. Conclusion

The judgment hearing at the Labor Relations Commission was held for this case in the afternoon of December 17, 2007. As the Company dismissed the Employee pursuant to an order from the head office, it did not have any clear evidence or data to verify that the Employee had any connection to the unfair price transaction. The Company also could not answer the question of why it did not observe the disciplinary process stipulated in the rules of employment. The Labor Relations Commission chairman suggested the parties settle the case. The Employee considered it seriously in relation to two options: reinstatement plus back pay and appropriate compensation. When he realized that there were only 11 months left in the labor contract and he was not sure of his future in the head office after completing his assignment period, he decided to accept compensation. Therefore, the Employee accepted 9 month’s average salary as compensation.


[Dismissal of a Foreign Golf Coach]

Company “K” (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) which runs a golf academy business, operates an indoor golf driving range in Kangnam, Seoul and a golf academy at a golf course in Cheonan. The foreign golf coach (hereinafter referred to as “the Employee”) had satisfactorily completed a two year employment contract from May 1st, 2007, and both the Employee and the Company renewed the employment contract for two more years from May 1st, 2009. The Employee worked three days per week at the Kangnam indoor golf driving range and three days per week at the Cheonan golf course.

The Employee and his girlfriend began living together in Seoul in July 2009. In August of 2009, the Company ordered the Employee to transfer to a new golf academy at Oak Valley golf resort near Wonju. Instead, the Employee consistently stated that he was willing to work three days in Seoul and three days at Oak Valley as the existing contract stated. However, the Company insisted that he work only at Oak Valley, warning him that if he would not transfer to the workplace at Oak Valley, the Company would terminate the employment contract. In the end, the Company verbally agreed on working conditions in which the Employee would work three days in Seoul and three days at Oak Valley, and the Employee started working according to this agreed-upon working schedule. However, unexpectedly, the Company hired another coach to replace the Employee in the middle of October and suggested to the Employee that he work part-time. When the Employee rejected this, the Company dismissed the Employee, informing him that his employment would conclude the last day of November. b


I. The Company’s Claim

The Company renewed the employment contract in May 2009 because the Employee was very willing to move to the Oak Valley golf academy. In June 2009, the Company decided to close the indoor driving range in Kangnam, Seoul, at the same time as opening the golf academy in Oak Valley. Accordingly, the Company requested that the Employee transfer to the golf academy at Oak Valley, but the Employee refused. The Company consequently hired a new golf coach as the Employee’s successor in October 2009 and assigned him to Oak Valley. Then, the Company suggested that the Employee voluntarily resign since he refused to transfer to Oak Valley. In the beginning, the Employee did not agree, but later said that he would resign since he could not move to Oak Valley and the Company had already hired his successor. As he did not come to work after November 30th, 2009, the Employee was regarded to have resigned. The verbal promise that the Company made to let him work three days each in Seoul and Oak Valley was designed to provide some time for him to get a new job when he was terminated, and was not seen by the Company as a new working agreement. The Company did not dismiss him, he resigned voluntarily.
II. The Employee’s Claim

The Employee completed a two-year employment contract with the Company, and after signing a new two-year contract on May 1st, 2009, the Employee invited his fiancée from England to come to Korea to live with him in July 2009. Even though the Employee began teaching golf to VIPs at the Oak Valley golf academy, he could not work there every day since he had just married, so the Employee requested to work 3 days per week each in Seoul and Oak Valley. However, the Company responded that he would be dismissed if he could not work full-time at Oak Valley. In early October, the Employee and the Company agreed that he would work 3 days at Oak Valley and 3 days in Seoul, which the Employee did. However, despite this agreement, the Company hired a new golf coach to replace the Employee at Oak Valley, and urged the Employee to continue working part-time. When the Employee rejected this, the Company informed him verbally that he would be dismissed as of November 30th and should move out of Company housing. On the evening of November 30th, 2009, the Employee visited this labor attorney and asked me to take his case.


III. Estimating Justification for Dismissal in this Case and Settlement Reached with the Labor Commission’s Guidance

1. Estimating Justification for Dismissal in this Case

If an Employee resigns voluntarily, he/she cannot file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. However, when there is a dispute in a case of dismissal between an employee and the employer, the Labor Commission shall estimate whether the termination of employment was the result of resignation or dismissal. If a labor case is determined to be a case of dismissal, the Labor Commission shall estimate whether the dismissal was justifiable or unjustifiable. Justifiable dismissal requires the following conditions: 1) misbehavior by an employee falls under the “reasons for disciplinary dismissal,” 2) the degree of violation is severe enough for dismissal to be accepted as socially appropriate, and additionally, 3) the employer observes the company’s disciplinary procedures if stipulated by the rules of employment or the collective agreement. Also, Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act (Written Notification of Reasons for Dismissal) stipulates that if an employer intends to dismiss an employee, the employer shall notify the employee, in writing, of the reason(s) for dismissal and the date of termination. Submission of a written notice of dismissal is regarded as evidence that the disciplinary process has been implemented. Accordingly, dismissal is regarded as justifiable when there are justifiable reason(s) for disciplinary action, punishment is appropriate to the situation, and disciplinary process was followed.
2. Settlement Reached with the Labor Commission’s Guidance

The judgment hearing for remedy of this Employee’s unfair dismissal was held at Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on February 3rd, 2010. At the beginning of the hearing, the chairman of the Labor Relations Commission suggested that the Employee accept a peaceful settlement with the employer and receive a cash payment as compensation instead of being reinstated. The Employee felt that the workplace where he would be reinstated would not be appropriate and expressed intention to accept the settlement. The Company also felt their statement that the Employee quit his job voluntarily would not likely be accepted by the Labor Commission. If this was judged as a dismissal case, the result would likely be disadvantageous to the Company because they did not follow required dismissal procedures. The Labor Commission suggested that the Company would be wise to accept a mutually agreed-upon settlement instead of receiving an unfavorable result. The Company and the Employee began negotiating a settlement. The Employee requested compensation for lost wages from the dismissal date to the time when he would get another job, but the Company responded that they would rather reinstate him than pay such a large compensation package.

During settlement negotiations, new points of dispute arose, among them whether severance pay should be added to any compensation to the Employee. The Company stated that it should be taken for granted that severance pay for a foreign golf coach was not applicable. The Company explained that they had not paid any severance pay to golf coaches so far, and that if the Company had to pay severance pay, they would have made employment contracts with severance pay already deducted from the annual salary. The Employee responded that because the Labor Standards Act applied to all employees, regardless of nationality or salary, the employer should pay severance pay to employees who serve one year or more in Korea.

As the settlement negotiations continued without a result acceptable to both parties, the Labor Commission made an additional suggestion: the Company would pay compensation for the period from the date of dismissal to the judgment hearing date, and severance pay as stipulated by law. Both parties accepted this suggestion, agreed on the settlement conditions and then signed the following written agreement.


Agreement on Settlement

1. The Employer shall pay USD 20,625 (before tax deductions) including severance pay, in lieu of early retirement allowance to the Employee by Feb 12th, 2010.
2. If the Employer does not implement the above paragraph 1, the Company shall pay a late penalty of an additional 20% interest per annum from Feb 13th, 2010, to the payment date.
3. The Employee’s employment is terminated by mutual agreement as of Nov 30th, 2009.
4. Both parties will not take any further civil or criminal action or make any complaint to any administrative office regarding this labor case.

We confirm that this case has been mutually settled under the above conditions.

Employee’s Signature: _____________
Employer’s Signature: _____________




IV. Conclusion

The Employee and the Company were able to conclude this dismissal case with a peaceful settlement, seeing that this was the best option at the judgment hearing. Upon closing this case, I felt something missing from both sides: if the Company had understood the criteria used in the Labor Standards Act in determining justifiable disciplinary dismissal, termination of employment would not have led to a dispute over dismissal, and if the Employee had followed the Company’s orders to relocate, he would have found a desirable solution before the Company felt it needed to hire a replacement, and then he would not have lost time in adjusting to his workplace in advance. While I represent many foreigners in labor disputes, I have regretted to see many issues develop into undesirable dismissal cases due to a lack of communication between employee and employer. Fortunately, this case was settled peacefully by mutual agreement without any real damage to either side, which, in my opinion, is the most desirable solution.

Agreement on Settlement

1. The Employer shall pay USD 20,625 (before tax deductions) including severance pay, in lieu of early retirement allowance to the Employee by Feb 12th, 2010.
2. If the Employer does not implement the above paragraph 1, the Company shall pay a late penalty of an additional 20% interest per annum from Feb 13th, 2010, to the payment date.
3. The Employee’s employment is terminated by mutual agreement as of Nov 30th, 2009.
4. Both parties will not take any further civil or criminal action or make any complaint to any administrative office regarding this labor case.

We confirm that this case has been mutually settled under the above conditions.

Employee’s Signature: _____________
Employer’s Signature: _____________


[When in Korea, Do as the Koreans Do]

Labor laws are different in every country, and their application exclusive to each country. As long as corporations do business in Korea, they need to observe Korean labor law. Even though a company's headquarters are in another country, Korean labor law applies to any Korean branch offices, in terms of labor disputes and employment relations. The Conflict of Laws, Article 28 (Employment Contracts)

- May 10, 2012: Employee is dismissed
- May 20, 2012: Employee files for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission (LRC).
- July 30, 2012: At an adjudication meeting, the LRC determines dismissal is unfair, and orders reinstatement of the Employee to his/her original position. Back pay equivalent to what was missed since the dismissal is also ordered.
- August 7, 2012: Company appeals to the National Labor Relations Commission.
- Oct 15, 2012: Fine of KRW 5 million levied for failure to implement the LRC’s orders.
- November 14, 2012: Chairwoman of the Adjudication Meeting during the appeal suggests a settlement. Both parties accept an adjusted draft of the settlement and finally conclude with a monetary compromise.

There were two critical questions in this case: First, when dismissing an employee, can a company’s sales department dismiss sales staff due to a lack of qualifications for the work without going through the personnel department? Second, is a written notice of dismissal legal if it only lists the date of dismissal and not the reasons for the dismissal.

The following case of unfair dismissal shows that while a Singaporean-invested company dismissed an employee according to its own corporate operational regulations, they did not consider Korean labor law. While this company was confident of the legitimacy of a particular dismissal according to its own interpretation of “justifiable causes”, that dismissal was regarded as unfair as it violated Korean labor law.


I. LRC Adjudication Meeting and Details of the Case

This case of unfair dismissal occurred at the Korean branch of a multinational company located in Singapore (Hereinafter referred to as “the Company”). This dismissal could have been justifiable, but it was determined to be unfair because the Company failed to follow the required disciplinary process due to a lack of understanding of Korean labor law. The Company opened its Korean branch in November 2009 and began by selling its products through department store sales outlets before extending its business through creation of production facilities for related products. While opening its sales office and sales outlets in major department stores, the Company hired this employee (Hereafter referred to as “the Employee”) as an assistant sales manager in September 2010. The Employee displayed a good attitude during the six-month probationary period, but failed to follow his immediate superior’s instructions after that time, seeming to think he was in charge of all sales in Korea. The Employee’s immediate superior was a Singaporean sales manager who directed him and received reports from him, splitting his time between Singapore and Korea. The Employee received 14 email warnings for failing to follow instructions, neglecting his duties, making critical mistakes at work, and poor performance, etc. over a period of one year before his dismissal. As the corporate structure of the Korean branch became firmly established, the Company decided to change the employment contract form from that used for the Singapore head office to a new one for the Korean branch, and asked all employees to sign the same contract as before, but on the new Korean branch form. All employees signed the new contract forms, except the Employee, who refused. His immediate superior then recommended disciplinary action for the Employee with the sales department head in Singapore. Upon review of the Employee’s history of warnings from his immediate supervisor, the Company decided to dismiss the Employee. The Singapore sales department head visited the Korean sales office on May 10, 2012, explained the reasons for dismissal and handed a notice of dismissal to Employee A. Employee A then filed for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, which ruled that the Employee had been unfairly dismissed. The LRC’s verdict was as follows:

“It is regarded as justifiable to dismiss an employee when implemented in cases where the violations were serious enough to discontinue employment relations in terms of socially accepted common sense. In determining whether the violations are serious enough to discontinue employment relations in terms of socially accepted common sense such items as the employer’s business purpose and characteristics, workplace conditions, the employee’s position and job description, motivation for and severity of the violations, the effects on corporate order, the employee’s previous attitude, and other related items shall be collectively reviewed” (Supreme Court on July 8, 2003, 2001du8018).

In reviewing the above legal principle and the established facts, we would like to make judgment on this case based upon the following: 1) What the employer mentioned: absences without permission, work negligence, poor performance, and mistranslations are acceptable reasons for disciplinary action, but they are not serious enough to dismiss the employee; 2) The employer claimed that the Company had scolded the Employee many times for his poor attitude, poor performance, and misuse of authority etc., but the Company had not given him warning letters or disciplined him officially; 3) What the employer claimed as the reasons for dismissal (poor attitude, poor performance, and misuse of authority) are not reasons for dismissal as stipulated by the Company’s rules of employment and the employment contract. Accordingly, the use of dismissal, the most serious form of disciplinary action, with the Employee, is judged to be unfair, and abuses the discretionary power of the employer’s personnel management rights.

II. Reasons the Employer Accepted a Settlement

1. Reasons for the appeal and the severity of disciplinary punishment

As the Company was certain that the first judgment of the Labor Relations Commission did not reflect the severity of the Employee’s violations such as his disobedience to instructions, absences without permission, neglect of his work duties, and poor performance, it decided to appeal. Regarding his work duties, the Employee had received 14 warning letters from his supervisor over the past year, and there were several instances of insulting behavior towards his immediate superior. In particular, despite his lower position, the Employee had behaved as the sales director for Korea, which disrupted the corporate structure. The Company had given the Employee several opportunities to improve his behavior but he had not made the effort, and so it decided to dismiss him after determining that giving other opportunities would be pointless. In the first LRC Adjudication Meeting, the Company had sent the Personnel Manager, but she had not been involved with this case, could not explain the case in detail, and could not provide sufficient documentation. Accordingly, at the appeal adjudication meeting, the Company sent the Employee's supervisors who actually dismissed him and were better able to explain the reasons behind his dismissal.

2. Cases where the sales department, and not the personnel department dismisses an employee

Even though reasons for disciplinary action with the Employee were considerable, these 14 email warnings were not from the personnel department in charge of the company’s personnel management rights, so could not be seen as official disciplinary action conducted in accordance with the rules of employment by the employer’s personnel department. Concerning this, the chairwoman of the Adjudication Committee stated, “When in Korea, do as the Koreans do.” In the course of exercising personnel management rights, a particular department’s disciplinary behaviors are not accepted as the Company’s disciplinary actions because those disciplinary actions are not recognized as Company punishment, even though the department’s disciplinary actions were justifiable.

3. Omission of reasons for dismissal in the written notification

During the appeal adjudication meeting, a member of the Adjudication Committee mentioned that the sales department head had given a notice of dismissal to the Employee which only described the dismissal date and a dismissal allowance. The Company responded, ‘Even though the notification letter did not stipulate the reasons for dismissal, the sales department head discussed the reasons for dismissal with the Employee, after which the Employee accepted the dismissal and apologized.’ However, at the adjudication meeting, the Employee stated that he had received a written notification without any discussion. According to judicial ruling, a written notification of dismissal shall contain the reasons for dismissal and the effective date of dismissal.

When an employer issues a written letter containing reasons for dismissal, it is not sufficient to enumerate articles of the collective agreement or the rules of employment (Supreme Court ruling on Oct 27, 2011, 2011da42324).
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act regulates that “an employer who wants to dismiss an employee shall give written notice as to the cause for dismissal, and the date of dismissal, etc.” This written notification of reasons for dismissal is designed for the employer to think carefully before dismissing employees, to make clear that an employee is being dismissed, the effective date and reasons for dismissal, and to aid the employee in responding appropriately to dismissal. Accordingly, when an employer issues a written letter of dismissal, the employee shall be told the reasons he/she was dismissed. In particular, disciplinary dismissal shall include concrete facts or details of violations that led to actual reasons for dismissal. It is not sufficient to simply enumerate articles of the collective agreement or the rules of employment that the employee violated.

Accordingly, when determining reasons for disciplinary dismissal, the employer did not write down reasons for disciplinary action to which the Company’s rules of employment applied. Therefore, this dismissal violated Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, which requires carrying out of the disciplinary process.

4. Settlement

The employer justified the dismissal of the Employee by citing his violations. However, disciplinary actions for the Employee were not made by the Company’s personnel department, which has disciplinary rights. These disciplinary actions were also email warnings, not official written notices. The Company also erred severely by not including the reasons for dismissal in the written notification.

The chairwoman of the adjudication meeting gave the two parties one week to reach a mutually-acceptable compromise. As it knew there was a danger of losing the case due to its dismissal process mistakes and the insufficient information on the written notification of dismissal, the Company agreed to an adjusted monetary compensation.


III. Conclusion

A nation’s labor law has authority within its territorial jurisdiction, and applies exclusively to the corresponding country. This case shows that even though the Company could have justifiably dismissed Employee A, the dismissal was deemed unfair due to the Company’s failure to observe Korean labor law. In the end, the case was concluded through a settlement after appealing to the National Labor Relations Commission. In the initial case before the Labor Relations Commission, the Employee expressed an intention to settle for 1.5 month’s salary as compensation, but during the appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission, the Employee realized the strength of his case, and requested compensation equal to the salary missed during the entire dismissal period. Fortunately for the Company, the labor attorneys on both sides reached agreement to adjust this claim to 3.5 months’ salary.

The lessons that we can learn are that when an employer wishes to dismiss an employee, he/she must be sure that the dismissal is not carried out by the related department, but by the personnel management department. The employer shall also confirm whether the dismissal is acceptable according to the regulations in the rules of employment. In particular, notification of dismissal shall include reasons for dismissal as well as the effective date of dismissal. When working in countries outside of where its headquarters are located, it is very necessary for foreign companies to recognize that while one nation’s labor laws do not generally apply to other countries, they are exclusively and definitely applied within that nation’s boundaries.