Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on the Existence of Dismissal (Early Leave on First Day Due to Health Deterioration) (Unfair Dismissal 193)
- Date2026/02/10 04:13
- Read 236
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (early leave on first day due to health deterioration).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3942 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.15 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Reviewing the text messages submitted by the worker, who left work after one hour on the first day due to health problems and then claimed that the employer had dismissed him, the content reads, “If you believe there is some concern about my recovery and continued performance of duties, I hereby notify you that it is acceptable to cancel my hiring.” This indicates that the employer may cancel the employment contract at the worker’s discretion and appears to be in the nature of a suggestion granting the employer the option to do so.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker worked for only one hour on the first day of employment due to health issues and then left early, thereafter filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that he had been unfairly dismissed. Immediately after the early leave, the worker and employer exchanged text messages concerning the possibility of canceling the hiring and the worker’s intention to return. Approximately three months later, the worker asserted unfair dismissal, giving rise to the dispute.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the worker, after leaving early on the first day due to health problems, sent a text message suggesting cancellation of the hiring, the employer’s response constitutes a unilateral unfair dismissal contrary to the worker’s intention, or whether there was no dismissal at all.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the worker first notified the employer that “if there are concerns about my recovery and continued performance of duties, it is acceptable to cancel my hiring,” that the employer responded by stating, “If you intend to return, please come back after you have fully recovered,” thereby expressing an intention to wait for the worker’s return, and that despite this, the worker neither expressed an intention to return nor attempted to report to work for approximately three months, only later alleging unfair dismissal. In light of these circumstances, the panel found no objective evidence to recognize a unilateral expression of intent to dismiss by the employer. Furthermore, considering the content of the worker’s text messages and his subsequent conduct as a whole, it was difficult to find that the worker had a genuine intention to return. Accordingly, the panel held that in this case there was no act of termination of the employment contract in the form of “dismissal” in the first place, and dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Workers should be aware that if they use expressions via text message, messenger, etc. such as “it is acceptable to cancel my hiring” or “I will resign,” this may be interpreted not as a dismissal by the employer, but as the worker proposing or agreeing to terminate the employment contract. Where it is temporarily difficult to provide labor for health reasons, rather than first proposing dismissal or cancellation of hiring, it is advisable to clearly inform the employer regarding sick leave, leave of absence, and expected return date, and, if there is an intention to return, to express that intention repeatedly, together with specific dates.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even if the worker uses expressions suggesting cancellation of hiring or resignation, there may later be a dispute as to whether the situation constituted dismissal or resignation/mutual termination. It is therefore important to clearly document in writing or by text message whether the situation is “a mutual termination based on the worker’s proposal rather than a dismissal,” or “a temporary adjustment premised on the worker’s return.” In particular, with respect to a worker who has left early due to health problems, it is very helpful for preventing unfair dismissal disputes to establish procedures such as specifically informing the worker of the possible timing of return and the company’s position, and confirming the worker’s intention to return within a certain period.
This decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission shows that, in order to contest unfair dismissal, it is first necessary to strictly examine whether there actually exists a unilateral expression of intent to dismiss by the employer. It further illustrates that, in light of the content of text messages and conversations and subsequent conduct, where the worker has proposed termination of the employment contract on his own or has not shown any intention to return, the existence of dismissal itself may be denied. Both workers and employers preparing applications for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission should consult with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to accurately organize whether there was a dismissal, resignation, or mutual termination before responding.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Reviewing the text messages submitted by the worker, who left work after one hour on the first day due to his own health problems and then claimed that the employer had dismissed him, the content reads, “If you believe there is some concern about my recovery and continued performance of duties, I hereby notify you that it is acceptable to cancel my hiring.” This indicates that it is acceptable to cancel the employment contract at the worker’s discretion and appears to be in the nature of a suggestion granting the employer the option to do so. In addition, although the employer clearly expressed an intention to wait for the worker’s return by stating to the worker, “If you intend to return, please come back after you have fully recovered,” the worker did not express any intention to return or attempt to report to work for approximately three months thereafter, and only then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Considering these circumstances as a whole, there is no basis to find that the worker was unilaterally dismissed by the employer, and it is also difficult to find that the worker had a genuine intention to return. Accordingly, it is determined that no dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Reviewing the text messages submitted by the worker, who left work after one hour on the first day due to his own health problems and then claimed that the employer had dismissed him, the content reads, “If you believe there is some concern about my recovery and continued performance of duties, I hereby notify you that it is acceptable to cancel my hiring.” This indicates that it is acceptable to cancel the employment contract at the worker’s discretion and appears to be in the nature of a suggestion granting the employer the option to do so. In addition, although the employer clearly expressed an intention to wait for the worker’s return by stating to the worker, “If you intend to return, please come back after you have fully recovered,” the worker did not express any intention to return or attempt to report to work for approximately three months thereafter, and only then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Considering these circumstances as a whole, there is no basis to find that the worker was unilaterally dismissed by the employer, and it is also difficult to find that the worker had a genuine intention to return. Accordingly, it is determined that no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Misunderstood Probationary Dismissal (Rule Excluding Employees with More Than Two Years’ Experience from Probation)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Employee Status (Owner-Drivers, Family Members, Nominal Representatives)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (early leave on first day due to health deterioration), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Employee Status (Owner-Drivers, Family Members, Nominal Representatives),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (early leave on first day due to health deterioration) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Existence of Dismissal (Early Leave on First Day Due to Health Deterioration).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (early leave on first day due to health deterioration).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3942 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.15 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Reviewing the text messages submitted by the worker, who left work after one hour on the first day due to health problems and then claimed that the employer had dismissed him, the content reads, “If you believe there is some concern about my recovery and continued performance of duties, I hereby notify you that it is acceptable to cancel my hiring.” This indicates that the employer may cancel the employment contract at the worker’s discretion and appears to be in the nature of a suggestion granting the employer the option to do so.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker worked for only one hour on the first day of employment due to health issues and then left early, thereafter filing an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that he had been unfairly dismissed. Immediately after the early leave, the worker and employer exchanged text messages concerning the possibility of canceling the hiring and the worker’s intention to return. Approximately three months later, the worker asserted unfair dismissal, giving rise to the dispute.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the worker, after leaving early on the first day due to health problems, sent a text message suggesting cancellation of the hiring, the employer’s response constitutes a unilateral unfair dismissal contrary to the worker’s intention, or whether there was no dismissal at all.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the worker first notified the employer that “if there are concerns about my recovery and continued performance of duties, it is acceptable to cancel my hiring,” that the employer responded by stating, “If you intend to return, please come back after you have fully recovered,” thereby expressing an intention to wait for the worker’s return, and that despite this, the worker neither expressed an intention to return nor attempted to report to work for approximately three months, only later alleging unfair dismissal. In light of these circumstances, the panel found no objective evidence to recognize a unilateral expression of intent to dismiss by the employer. Furthermore, considering the content of the worker’s text messages and his subsequent conduct as a whole, it was difficult to find that the worker had a genuine intention to return. Accordingly, the panel held that in this case there was no act of termination of the employment contract in the form of “dismissal” in the first place, and dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Workers should be aware that if they use expressions via text message, messenger, etc. such as “it is acceptable to cancel my hiring” or “I will resign,” this may be interpreted not as a dismissal by the employer, but as the worker proposing or agreeing to terminate the employment contract. Where it is temporarily difficult to provide labor for health reasons, rather than first proposing dismissal or cancellation of hiring, it is advisable to clearly inform the employer regarding sick leave, leave of absence, and expected return date, and, if there is an intention to return, to express that intention repeatedly, together with specific dates.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even if the worker uses expressions suggesting cancellation of hiring or resignation, there may later be a dispute as to whether the situation constituted dismissal or resignation/mutual termination. It is therefore important to clearly document in writing or by text message whether the situation is “a mutual termination based on the worker’s proposal rather than a dismissal,” or “a temporary adjustment premised on the worker’s return.” In particular, with respect to a worker who has left early due to health problems, it is very helpful for preventing unfair dismissal disputes to establish procedures such as specifically informing the worker of the possible timing of return and the company’s position, and confirming the worker’s intention to return within a certain period.
This decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission shows that, in order to contest unfair dismissal, it is first necessary to strictly examine whether there actually exists a unilateral expression of intent to dismiss by the employer. It further illustrates that, in light of the content of text messages and conversations and subsequent conduct, where the worker has proposed termination of the employment contract on his own or has not shown any intention to return, the existence of dismissal itself may be denied. Both workers and employers preparing applications for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission should consult with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to accurately organize whether there was a dismissal, resignation, or mutual termination before responding.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Reviewing the text messages submitted by the worker, who left work after one hour on the first day due to his own health problems and then claimed that the employer had dismissed him, the content reads, “If you believe there is some concern about my recovery and continued performance of duties, I hereby notify you that it is acceptable to cancel my hiring.” This indicates that it is acceptable to cancel the employment contract at the worker’s discretion and appears to be in the nature of a suggestion granting the employer the option to do so. In addition, although the employer clearly expressed an intention to wait for the worker’s return by stating to the worker, “If you intend to return, please come back after you have fully recovered,” the worker did not express any intention to return or attempt to report to work for approximately three months thereafter, and only then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Considering these circumstances as a whole, there is no basis to find that the worker was unilaterally dismissed by the employer, and it is also difficult to find that the worker had a genuine intention to return. Accordingly, it is determined that no dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Reviewing the text messages submitted by the worker, who left work after one hour on the first day due to his own health problems and then claimed that the employer had dismissed him, the content reads, “If you believe there is some concern about my recovery and continued performance of duties, I hereby notify you that it is acceptable to cancel my hiring.” This indicates that it is acceptable to cancel the employment contract at the worker’s discretion and appears to be in the nature of a suggestion granting the employer the option to do so. In addition, although the employer clearly expressed an intention to wait for the worker’s return by stating to the worker, “If you intend to return, please come back after you have fully recovered,” the worker did not express any intention to return or attempt to report to work for approximately three months thereafter, and only then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Considering these circumstances as a whole, there is no basis to find that the worker was unilaterally dismissed by the employer, and it is also difficult to find that the worker had a genuine intention to return. Accordingly, it is determined that no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Misunderstood Probationary Dismissal (Rule Excluding Employees with More Than Two Years’ Experience from Probation)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Employee Status (Owner-Drivers, Family Members, Nominal Representatives)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (early leave on first day due to health deterioration), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Employee Status (Owner-Drivers, Family Members, Nominal Representatives),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (early leave on first day due to health deterioration) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Existence of Dismissal (Early Leave on First Day Due to Health Deterioration).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
