Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Existence of Dismissal (Misunderstanding of Manager’s Assault)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 151)
- Date2026/01/27 04:04
- Read 237
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the first-instance decision on the issue of “existence of dismissal (misunderstanding of manager’s assault).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae1420 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
December 23, 2025 · Result: First‑instance decision upheld
Key issues in summary: (i) After meeting with the employer regarding the “manager’s assault incident,” the employee went home early around 18:00, before the end of working hours, despite the employer’s request that he return to work; (ii) the employee claimed that, before going home, the employer notified him of dismissal by saying “do not work here anymore,” but there were no circumstances confirming that the employer expressed an intention to dismiss; (iii) from the text messages exchanged between the employee and the employer, the employee appears to have…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee, believing that he had been assaulted by the store manager, had a meeting with the employer and then left work early. He subsequently filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Central Labor Relations Commission reviewed various circumstances, including text messages and the results of the police investigation, to determine whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal or the employee’s voluntary departure, and ultimately issued a re‑examination decision upholding the first‑instance ruling.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether unfair dismissal is established where, in the context of the employee raising an issue about the manager’s assault and a conflict with the employer, the employee went home early of his own accord, and thereafter merely expressed an intention to return to work, while the employer stated “it’s difficult for us to work with you.”
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found as follows: although the employer requested that the employee return to work after their meeting, the employee left the workplace and went home early during working hours of his own accord; the alleged expression of intent to dismiss—“do not work here anymore”—claimed by the employee is not supported by any objective evidence; based on the content of the text messages, it appears that the employee himself severed the employment relationship and left in protest against the employer’s “failure to take measures regarding the manager’s assault” and the “request to sign a daily worker employment contract”; furthermore, the manager assault case reported by the employee to the police was closed with a “no charges” disposition, and the alleged assault itself was not recognized.
In light of the above, the Commission determined that the employee, dissatisfied with the employer’s response, voluntarily left the workplace and thereby terminated the employment relationship, and only later expressed an intention to return to work. The employer’s statement that “it’s difficult for us to work with you” was regarded merely as an expression of refusal to re‑employ, indicating that the employer did not wish to re‑establish an already terminated relationship.
The Commission held that, in the absence of a unilateral act of dismissal by the employer, the measure in question could not be regarded as unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Pointers (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is crucial to secure objective evidence (recordings, text messages, messenger logs, etc.) that can prove whether the employer clearly expressed an intention to terminate the employment contract, and, if so, the timing and content of that expression. Even in situations involving serious issues such as assault or workplace harassment, if the employee leaves the workplace without permission during working hours, that conduct may later be evaluated as a resignation or a severance of the employment relationship. Accordingly, it is advisable to raise issues in writing where possible and to use formal procedures (petitions, complaints, etc.) in parallel.
Ⅴ. Practical Pointers (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, statements made emotionally during meetings to the effect of “just quit” can be misunderstood as dismissal. If there is no intention to terminate the employment relationship, it is advisable to clearly record both the instruction to return to work and the intention to continue the employment relationship. In addition, for sensitive matters such as assault or workplace harassment, the fact‑finding process and subsequent measures should be documented in writing so that, if the employee later alleges unfair dismissal or failure by the employer to take appropriate measures, such documentation can serve as favorable evidence in the employer’s defense.
To prevent this type of dispute, it is recommended that employers, with the advice of a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, establish in advance clear criteria and procedures for distinguishing among dismissal, resignation, and termination by mutual agreement.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) After meeting with the employer regarding the “manager’s assault incident,” the employee went home early around 18:00, before the end of working hours, despite the employer’s request that he return to work; (2) the employee claimed that, before going home, the employer notified him of dismissal by saying “do not work here anymore,” but there were no circumstances confirming that the employer expressed an intention to dismiss; (3) from the text messages exchanged between the employee and the employer, it appears that the employee went home early because the employer requested that he sign a daily worker employment contract and failed to take appropriate measures regarding the “manager’s assault incident”; (4) the “manager’s assault incident” reported by the employee to the police was disposed of as “no charges,” and it was confirmed that there was in fact no act of assault. In light of the foregoing, the Commission concluded that the employee left the workplace of his own accord, thereby terminating the employment relationship due to the employer’s “failure to take measures regarding the manager’s assault and the request to sign a daily worker employment contract,” and only thereafter expressed an “intention to return to work” to the employer. The employer’s statement that “it’s difficult for us to work with you” was an expression that it had no intention to re‑employ. Accordingly, no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
(1) After meeting with the employer regarding the “manager’s assault incident,” the employee went home early around 18:00, before the end of working hours, despite the employer’s request that he return to work; (2) the employee claimed that, before going home, the employer notified him of dismissal by saying “do not work here anymore,” but there were no circumstances confirming that the employer expressed an intention to dismiss; (3) from the text messages exchanged between the employee and the employer, it appears that the employee went home early because the employer requested that he sign a daily worker employment contract and failed to take appropriate measures regarding the “manager’s assault incident”; (4) the “manager’s assault incident” reported by the employee to the police was disposed of as “no charges,” and it was confirmed that there was in fact no act of assault. In light of the foregoing, the Commission concluded that the employee left the workplace of his own accord, thereby terminating the employment relationship due to the employer’s “failure to take measures regarding the manager’s assault and the request to sign a daily worker employment contract,” and only thereafter expressed an “intention to return to work” to the employer. The employer’s statement that “it’s difficult for us to work with you” was an expression that it had no intention to re‑employ. Accordingly, no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Case
- “Dismissal of Case (Non‑appearance at Hearing)” Unfair Dismissal Case – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Non‑fulfilment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” Unfair Dismissal Case
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (misunderstanding of manager’s assault), others, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Requirements for Application of Law (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)’ Unfair Dismissal Case,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (misunderstanding of manager’s assault) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Misunderstanding of Manager’s Assault).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the first-instance decision on the issue of “existence of dismissal (misunderstanding of manager’s assault).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae1420 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
December 23, 2025 · Result: First‑instance decision upheld
Key issues in summary: (i) After meeting with the employer regarding the “manager’s assault incident,” the employee went home early around 18:00, before the end of working hours, despite the employer’s request that he return to work; (ii) the employee claimed that, before going home, the employer notified him of dismissal by saying “do not work here anymore,” but there were no circumstances confirming that the employer expressed an intention to dismiss; (iii) from the text messages exchanged between the employee and the employer, the employee appears to have…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee, believing that he had been assaulted by the store manager, had a meeting with the employer and then left work early. He subsequently filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Central Labor Relations Commission reviewed various circumstances, including text messages and the results of the police investigation, to determine whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal or the employee’s voluntary departure, and ultimately issued a re‑examination decision upholding the first‑instance ruling.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether unfair dismissal is established where, in the context of the employee raising an issue about the manager’s assault and a conflict with the employer, the employee went home early of his own accord, and thereafter merely expressed an intention to return to work, while the employer stated “it’s difficult for us to work with you.”
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found as follows: although the employer requested that the employee return to work after their meeting, the employee left the workplace and went home early during working hours of his own accord; the alleged expression of intent to dismiss—“do not work here anymore”—claimed by the employee is not supported by any objective evidence; based on the content of the text messages, it appears that the employee himself severed the employment relationship and left in protest against the employer’s “failure to take measures regarding the manager’s assault” and the “request to sign a daily worker employment contract”; furthermore, the manager assault case reported by the employee to the police was closed with a “no charges” disposition, and the alleged assault itself was not recognized.
In light of the above, the Commission determined that the employee, dissatisfied with the employer’s response, voluntarily left the workplace and thereby terminated the employment relationship, and only later expressed an intention to return to work. The employer’s statement that “it’s difficult for us to work with you” was regarded merely as an expression of refusal to re‑employ, indicating that the employer did not wish to re‑establish an already terminated relationship.
The Commission held that, in the absence of a unilateral act of dismissal by the employer, the measure in question could not be regarded as unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Pointers (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is crucial to secure objective evidence (recordings, text messages, messenger logs, etc.) that can prove whether the employer clearly expressed an intention to terminate the employment contract, and, if so, the timing and content of that expression. Even in situations involving serious issues such as assault or workplace harassment, if the employee leaves the workplace without permission during working hours, that conduct may later be evaluated as a resignation or a severance of the employment relationship. Accordingly, it is advisable to raise issues in writing where possible and to use formal procedures (petitions, complaints, etc.) in parallel.
Ⅴ. Practical Pointers (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, statements made emotionally during meetings to the effect of “just quit” can be misunderstood as dismissal. If there is no intention to terminate the employment relationship, it is advisable to clearly record both the instruction to return to work and the intention to continue the employment relationship. In addition, for sensitive matters such as assault or workplace harassment, the fact‑finding process and subsequent measures should be documented in writing so that, if the employee later alleges unfair dismissal or failure by the employer to take appropriate measures, such documentation can serve as favorable evidence in the employer’s defense.
To prevent this type of dispute, it is recommended that employers, with the advice of a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, establish in advance clear criteria and procedures for distinguishing among dismissal, resignation, and termination by mutual agreement.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) After meeting with the employer regarding the “manager’s assault incident,” the employee went home early around 18:00, before the end of working hours, despite the employer’s request that he return to work; (2) the employee claimed that, before going home, the employer notified him of dismissal by saying “do not work here anymore,” but there were no circumstances confirming that the employer expressed an intention to dismiss; (3) from the text messages exchanged between the employee and the employer, it appears that the employee went home early because the employer requested that he sign a daily worker employment contract and failed to take appropriate measures regarding the “manager’s assault incident”; (4) the “manager’s assault incident” reported by the employee to the police was disposed of as “no charges,” and it was confirmed that there was in fact no act of assault. In light of the foregoing, the Commission concluded that the employee left the workplace of his own accord, thereby terminating the employment relationship due to the employer’s “failure to take measures regarding the manager’s assault and the request to sign a daily worker employment contract,” and only thereafter expressed an “intention to return to work” to the employer. The employer’s statement that “it’s difficult for us to work with you” was an expression that it had no intention to re‑employ. Accordingly, no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
(1) After meeting with the employer regarding the “manager’s assault incident,” the employee went home early around 18:00, before the end of working hours, despite the employer’s request that he return to work; (2) the employee claimed that, before going home, the employer notified him of dismissal by saying “do not work here anymore,” but there were no circumstances confirming that the employer expressed an intention to dismiss; (3) from the text messages exchanged between the employee and the employer, it appears that the employee went home early because the employer requested that he sign a daily worker employment contract and failed to take appropriate measures regarding the “manager’s assault incident”; (4) the “manager’s assault incident” reported by the employee to the police was disposed of as “no charges,” and it was confirmed that there was in fact no act of assault. In light of the foregoing, the Commission concluded that the employee left the workplace of his own accord, thereby terminating the employment relationship due to the employer’s “failure to take measures regarding the manager’s assault and the request to sign a daily worker employment contract,” and only thereafter expressed an “intention to return to work” to the employer. The employer’s statement that “it’s difficult for us to work with you” was an expression that it had no intention to re‑employ. Accordingly, no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Case
- “Dismissal of Case (Non‑appearance at Hearing)” Unfair Dismissal Case – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Non‑fulfilment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” Unfair Dismissal Case
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (misunderstanding of manager’s assault), others, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Requirements for Application of Law (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)’ Unfair Dismissal Case,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (misunderstanding of manager’s assault) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Misunderstanding of Manager’s Assault).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
