Corporate trends / Performance record
Remedial Interest and Existence of Dismissal (Telephone Remark: “Don’t Come In From Tomorrow”) – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 232)
- Date2026/02/24 04:13
- Read 214
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee fully prevailed on the issues of “remedial interest and existence of dismissal (telephone remark: ‘don’t come in from tomorrow’).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae469 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.27 · Outcome: Fully Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether remedial interest exists: In light of the facts that the employer sent a notice of reinstatement to the employee while the remedy application was pending, and that the employer did not contact the employee at all even though the employee did not report to work on the reinstatement notice date of September 15, 2025, it is difficult to view the employer’s reinstatement order as genuine, and therefore remedial interest is deemed to exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, while the employer and employee were in dispute over wages, the employer notified the employee by telephone, “Do not come to work from tomorrow.” After the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employer belatedly sent a reinstatement notice. The issue was whether unfair dismissal had occurred in this situation.
The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on the genuineness of the reinstatement notice, whether the conduct constituted a dismissal, the just cause for dismissal, and the defect in written notice of dismissal, and granted the employee’s application for remedy in full.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: when, in the course of a wage dispute, the employer says over the phone, “Do not come to work from tomorrow,” whether this constitutes a dismissal; and, where the employer sends a reinstatement notice during the pending unfair dismissal remedy proceedings, whether remedial interest still exists.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that, although the employer sent a reinstatement notice while the remedy application was pending, the employer took no further contact or measures when the employee did not report to work on the reinstatement date; that, prior to this, the employer had already made a unilateral statement of intent, against the background of a wage dispute, that the employee should “not come to work from tomorrow”; and that no written notice specifying the reason and timing of dismissal was given at the time of termination of the employment relationship.
On this basis, the panel held that the employer’s reinstatement order lacked genuineness and thus it was difficult to regard the purpose of the remedy application as having been achieved; that the telephone notice constituted a dismissal in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship; and that no just cause for dismissal was established and the written notice procedure required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act (stating the reason and timing of dismissal) had not been observed.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that even if they hear phrases such as “don’t come anymore” or “don’t come to work from tomorrow” not by text message or KakaoTalk but in a telephone call, this can constitute a dismissal as a unilateral expression of intent by the employer to terminate the employment relationship.
In addition, even if the employer belatedly issues a reinstatement notice, the key question is whether the employer truly intended and was prepared to accept the employee back to work, and whether there was “substantive reinstatement” sufficient to extinguish remedial interest. Employees should therefore carefully preserve the surrounding circumstances before and after the reinstatement notice—through recordings, text messages, and messenger logs.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to exercise great caution, as an off‑the‑cuff remark in the context of a wage dispute or emotional conflict such as “don’t come in from tomorrow” can immediately be evaluated as an unfair dismissal. If dismissal is necessary, the employer should, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide the employee in advance with a written notice specifying the reason and timing of dismissal, and should proceed only after sufficiently reviewing whether there are objective and reasonable grounds and whether the dismissal is socially acceptable.
Furthermore, if the employer is considering reinstatement after an application for remedy for unfair dismissal has been filed, the employer should keep in mind that, as the Supreme Court has stated, only where the employee is actually returned to a position where he or she can provide labor in substance, and where the employer takes sincere measures such as repeatedly encouraging the employee to report to work if the employee does not do so, is there any possibility that an argument for extinguishment of remedial interest will be accepted.
This decision of the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly sets out the criteria for recognizing remedial interest in unfair dismissal disputes, and confirms that even informal methods such as notification by telephone can constitute dismissal where the employer unilaterally expresses an intention to terminate the employment relationship. To prevent similar disputes, both employees and employers are advised to obtain prior advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and to improve their HR and labor management systems.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether remedial interest exists
In light of the facts that the employer sent a reinstatement notice to the employee while the remedy application was pending, and that the employer did not contact the employee at all even though the employee did not report to work on the reinstatement date of September 15, 2025, it is difficult to view the employer’s reinstatement order as genuine, and therefore remedial interest is deemed to exist.
B. Existence of dismissal
It appears that, due to differences in position regarding wages, the employer expressed to the employee by telephone on July 24, 2025, that the employee should not come to work from the next day. This constitutes a dismissal in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship.
C. Just cause for dismissal
No just cause has been established for the employer’s unilateral termination of the employment relationship with the employee, and there is no fact that a notice specifying the reason and timing of dismissal was given at the time of termination. The dismissal is therefore unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether remedial interest exists
In light of the facts that the employer sent a reinstatement notice to the employee while the remedy application was pending, and that the employer did not contact the employee at all even though the employee did not report to work on the reinstatement date of September 15, 2025, it is difficult to view the employer’s reinstatement order as genuine, and therefore remedial interest is deemed to exist.
B. Existence of dismissal
It appears that, due to differences in position regarding wages, the employer expressed to the employee by telephone on July 24, 2025, that the employee should not come to work from the next day. This constitutes a dismissal in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship.
C. Just cause for dismissal
No just cause has been established for the employer’s unilateral termination of the employment relationship with the employee, and there is no fact that a notice specifying the reason and timing of dismissal was given at the time of termination. The dismissal is therefore unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Extinguishment of Remedial Interest (Notice of Transfer with Reservation)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Telephone Remark About Resignation)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Disciplinary Dismissal Sanction Level (Combined Misconduct of Negligent Work Performance and Sexual Harassment)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, remedial interest and existence of dismissal (telephone remark: “don’t come in from tomorrow”), 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 Disciplinary Dismissal Sanction Level (Combined Misconduct of Negligent Work Performance and Sexual Harassment),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to remedial interest and existence of dismissal (telephone remark: “don’t come in from tomorrow”) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Remedial Interest and Existence of Dismissal (Telephone Remark: ‘Don’t Come In From Tomorrow’)”.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee fully prevailed on the issues of “remedial interest and existence of dismissal (telephone remark: ‘don’t come in from tomorrow’).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae469 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.27 · Outcome: Fully Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether remedial interest exists: In light of the facts that the employer sent a notice of reinstatement to the employee while the remedy application was pending, and that the employer did not contact the employee at all even though the employee did not report to work on the reinstatement notice date of September 15, 2025, it is difficult to view the employer’s reinstatement order as genuine, and therefore remedial interest is deemed to exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, while the employer and employee were in dispute over wages, the employer notified the employee by telephone, “Do not come to work from tomorrow.” After the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employer belatedly sent a reinstatement notice. The issue was whether unfair dismissal had occurred in this situation.
The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on the genuineness of the reinstatement notice, whether the conduct constituted a dismissal, the just cause for dismissal, and the defect in written notice of dismissal, and granted the employee’s application for remedy in full.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: when, in the course of a wage dispute, the employer says over the phone, “Do not come to work from tomorrow,” whether this constitutes a dismissal; and, where the employer sends a reinstatement notice during the pending unfair dismissal remedy proceedings, whether remedial interest still exists.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that, although the employer sent a reinstatement notice while the remedy application was pending, the employer took no further contact or measures when the employee did not report to work on the reinstatement date; that, prior to this, the employer had already made a unilateral statement of intent, against the background of a wage dispute, that the employee should “not come to work from tomorrow”; and that no written notice specifying the reason and timing of dismissal was given at the time of termination of the employment relationship.
On this basis, the panel held that the employer’s reinstatement order lacked genuineness and thus it was difficult to regard the purpose of the remedy application as having been achieved; that the telephone notice constituted a dismissal in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship; and that no just cause for dismissal was established and the written notice procedure required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act (stating the reason and timing of dismissal) had not been observed.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that even if they hear phrases such as “don’t come anymore” or “don’t come to work from tomorrow” not by text message or KakaoTalk but in a telephone call, this can constitute a dismissal as a unilateral expression of intent by the employer to terminate the employment relationship.
In addition, even if the employer belatedly issues a reinstatement notice, the key question is whether the employer truly intended and was prepared to accept the employee back to work, and whether there was “substantive reinstatement” sufficient to extinguish remedial interest. Employees should therefore carefully preserve the surrounding circumstances before and after the reinstatement notice—through recordings, text messages, and messenger logs.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to exercise great caution, as an off‑the‑cuff remark in the context of a wage dispute or emotional conflict such as “don’t come in from tomorrow” can immediately be evaluated as an unfair dismissal. If dismissal is necessary, the employer should, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide the employee in advance with a written notice specifying the reason and timing of dismissal, and should proceed only after sufficiently reviewing whether there are objective and reasonable grounds and whether the dismissal is socially acceptable.
Furthermore, if the employer is considering reinstatement after an application for remedy for unfair dismissal has been filed, the employer should keep in mind that, as the Supreme Court has stated, only where the employee is actually returned to a position where he or she can provide labor in substance, and where the employer takes sincere measures such as repeatedly encouraging the employee to report to work if the employee does not do so, is there any possibility that an argument for extinguishment of remedial interest will be accepted.
This decision of the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly sets out the criteria for recognizing remedial interest in unfair dismissal disputes, and confirms that even informal methods such as notification by telephone can constitute dismissal where the employer unilaterally expresses an intention to terminate the employment relationship. To prevent similar disputes, both employees and employers are advised to obtain prior advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and to improve their HR and labor management systems.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether remedial interest exists
In light of the facts that the employer sent a reinstatement notice to the employee while the remedy application was pending, and that the employer did not contact the employee at all even though the employee did not report to work on the reinstatement date of September 15, 2025, it is difficult to view the employer’s reinstatement order as genuine, and therefore remedial interest is deemed to exist.
B. Existence of dismissal
It appears that, due to differences in position regarding wages, the employer expressed to the employee by telephone on July 24, 2025, that the employee should not come to work from the next day. This constitutes a dismissal in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship.
C. Just cause for dismissal
No just cause has been established for the employer’s unilateral termination of the employment relationship with the employee, and there is no fact that a notice specifying the reason and timing of dismissal was given at the time of termination. The dismissal is therefore unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether remedial interest exists
In light of the facts that the employer sent a reinstatement notice to the employee while the remedy application was pending, and that the employer did not contact the employee at all even though the employee did not report to work on the reinstatement date of September 15, 2025, it is difficult to view the employer’s reinstatement order as genuine, and therefore remedial interest is deemed to exist.
B. Existence of dismissal
It appears that, due to differences in position regarding wages, the employer expressed to the employee by telephone on July 24, 2025, that the employee should not come to work from the next day. This constitutes a dismissal in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship.
C. Just cause for dismissal
No just cause has been established for the employer’s unilateral termination of the employment relationship with the employee, and there is no fact that a notice specifying the reason and timing of dismissal was given at the time of termination. The dismissal is therefore unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Extinguishment of Remedial Interest (Notice of Transfer with Reservation)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Telephone Remark About Resignation)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Disciplinary Dismissal Sanction Level (Combined Misconduct of Negligent Work Performance and Sexual Harassment)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, remedial interest and existence of dismissal (telephone remark: “don’t come in from tomorrow”), 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 Disciplinary Dismissal Sanction Level (Combined Misconduct of Negligent Work Performance and Sexual Harassment),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to remedial interest and existence of dismissal (telephone remark: “don’t come in from tomorrow”) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Remedial Interest and Existence of Dismissal (Telephone Remark: ‘Don’t Come In From Tomorrow’)”.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
