Corporate trends / Performance record
Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Age 75+ · Traffic Accident Consent Form) – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 323)
- Date2026/03/28 04:04
- Read 182
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (age 75+ · traffic accident consent form).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae32 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.12 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal existed
Given that the workplace rules of employment and collective agreement contained no provisions regarding renewal of employment contracts, that the worker’s employment contract expressly stated that the employment relationship would naturally terminate upon expiry of the contract term, that the parties had entered into an employment contract only once, and that, at the time of renewal of the 2026 employment contracts, the employer required a separate consent form and thereby imposed restrictions on renewal, the Commission held that between the employer and the worker…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose when a fixed-term worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal after the employer did not renew the worker’s employment contract upon expiry. The worker also alleged an unfair labor practice, asserting that the refusal to renew was due to the worker’s activities in the labor union to which the worker belonged. The employer, on the other hand, maintained that this was a simple expiration of the contract term and did not constitute either unfair dismissal or an unfair labor practice.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are: “In circumstances where a fixed-term employment contract, entered into only once, has expired, whether the worker has a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract; and whether the measure of requiring a separate consent form only from those aged 75 or older and from those who had caused traffic accidents resulting in losses of at least KRW 2 million constitutes an unfair labor practice based on union membership.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel noted that there were no provisions on contract renewal in either the workplace rules of employment or the collective agreement, that the employment contract clearly stated that “the employment relationship shall naturally terminate upon expiry of the contract term,” that the parties had entered into an employment contract only once and thus no long-standing practice of repeated renewals had been formed, and that, at the time of the 2026 renewal, the employer had clearly imposed restrictions on renewal by requiring a separate consent form from workers aged 75 or older and from those who had caused traffic accidents resulting in losses of at least KRW 2 million.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that any relationship of trust or practice had been formed between the parties regarding renewal of the employment contract, and therefore held that no legitimate expectation of renewal existed. Accordingly, it determined that there was no need to further examine whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
In addition, the Commission took into account that the employer had sent a uniform text message to all workers whose contracts were due to expire on 2025.12.31, that the criteria for requiring a separate consent form only from those aged 75 or older and from those who had caused traffic accidents resulting in losses of at least KRW 2 million had been set irrespective of union membership, and that neither the worker nor the union had produced any objective evidence to support the allegation that the employer had the intent to commit an unfair labor practice. On this basis, the Commission held that the allegation that the termination of the employment contract constituted an unfair labor practice was groundless. Consequently, it ruled that the dismissal in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Fixed-term workers should be aware that, where the employment contract clearly states that the employment relationship “naturally terminates upon expiry of the term,” where the workplace rules of employment and collective agreement contain no provisions imposing an obligation or procedure for renewal, and where there is no actual practice of repeated renewals, it is very difficult to have a legitimate expectation of renewal recognized. To allege an unfair labor practice based on union activities, it is important to secure objective materials showing, for example, that renewal decisions differed depending on union membership, or that disadvantageous criteria were applied only to union members.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
When operating fixed-term employment contracts, it is advisable to clearly stipulate the contract term and a clause stating that “the employment relationship terminates upon expiry of the term” in the employment contract, and to manage the workplace rules of employment and collective agreement so that no ambiguous wording can be interpreted as imposing an obligation to renew. In addition, when setting criteria for limiting renewal—such as age 75 or older, or involvement in a serious traffic accident as the at-fault party—it is important to document that such criteria are clearly linked to business needs, safety, and accountability, and to apply them consistently regardless of union membership in order to prevent disputes over unfair labor practices.
In disputes over unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices of this type, the decisive factors are whether there exist any provisions, practices, or specific promises that can support recognition of a legitimate expectation of renewal, and the extent to which objective evidence has been secured to substantiate differential treatment based on union activities. These points should always be kept in mind in practice.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal existed
Given that the workplace rules of employment and collective agreement contained no provisions on renewal of employment contracts, that the worker’s employment contract expressly stated that the employment relationship would naturally terminate upon expiry of the contract term, that the parties had entered into an employment contract only once, and that, at the time of renewal of the 2026 employment contracts, the employer required the execution of a separate consent form and thereby imposed restrictions on renewal, it cannot be deemed that any relationship of trust or practice was formed between the employer and the worker regarding renewal of the employment contract. Accordingly, no legitimate expectation of renewal is recognized. Therefore, there is no need to further examine whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
B. Whether the termination of the employment contract constituted an unfair labor practice
The employer sent text messages providing guidance on matters relating to the employment contract to all workers whose contracts were due to expire on 2025.12.31, irrespective of the labor union to which they belonged, and required a separate consent form only from those aged 75 or older and from those who had caused traffic accidents resulting in losses of at least KRW 2 million. Considering these facts, together with the fact that neither the worker nor the labor union has presented objective evidence sufficient to confirm the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice, the allegation of an unfair labor practice must be deemed groundless.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal existed
Given that the workplace rules of employment and collective agreement contained no provisions on renewal of employment contracts, that the worker’s employment contract expressly stated that the employment relationship would naturally terminate upon expiry of the contract term, that the parties had entered into an employment contract only once, and that, at the time of renewal of the 2026 employment contracts, the employer required the execution of a separate consent form and thereby imposed restrictions on renewal, it cannot be deemed that any relationship of trust or practice was formed between the employer and the worker regarding renewal of the employment contract. Accordingly, no legitimate expectation of renewal is recognized. Therefore, there is no need to further examine whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
B. Whether the termination of the employment contract constituted an unfair labor practice
The employer sent text messages providing guidance on matters relating to the employment contract to all workers whose contracts were due to expire on 2025.12.31, irrespective of the labor union to which they belonged, and required a separate consent form only from those aged 75 or older and from those who had caused traffic accidents resulting in losses of at least KRW 2 million. Considering these facts, together with the fact that neither the worker nor the labor union has presented objective evidence sufficient to confirm the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice, the allegation of an unfair labor practice must be deemed groundless.
/
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (age 75+ · traffic accident consent form), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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, “‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Written Apology · Workplace Conflict)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (age 75+ · traffic accident consent form) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Age 75+ · Traffic Accident Consent Form).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae32 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.12 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal existed
Given that the workplace rules of employment and collective agreement contained no provisions regarding renewal of employment contracts, that the worker’s employment contract expressly stated that the employment relationship would naturally terminate upon expiry of the contract term, that the parties had entered into an employment contract only once, and that, at the time of renewal of the 2026 employment contracts, the employer required a separate consent form and thereby imposed restrictions on renewal, the Commission held that between the employer and the worker…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose when a fixed-term worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal after the employer did not renew the worker’s employment contract upon expiry. The worker also alleged an unfair labor practice, asserting that the refusal to renew was due to the worker’s activities in the labor union to which the worker belonged. The employer, on the other hand, maintained that this was a simple expiration of the contract term and did not constitute either unfair dismissal or an unfair labor practice.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are: “In circumstances where a fixed-term employment contract, entered into only once, has expired, whether the worker has a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract; and whether the measure of requiring a separate consent form only from those aged 75 or older and from those who had caused traffic accidents resulting in losses of at least KRW 2 million constitutes an unfair labor practice based on union membership.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel noted that there were no provisions on contract renewal in either the workplace rules of employment or the collective agreement, that the employment contract clearly stated that “the employment relationship shall naturally terminate upon expiry of the contract term,” that the parties had entered into an employment contract only once and thus no long-standing practice of repeated renewals had been formed, and that, at the time of the 2026 renewal, the employer had clearly imposed restrictions on renewal by requiring a separate consent form from workers aged 75 or older and from those who had caused traffic accidents resulting in losses of at least KRW 2 million.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that any relationship of trust or practice had been formed between the parties regarding renewal of the employment contract, and therefore held that no legitimate expectation of renewal existed. Accordingly, it determined that there was no need to further examine whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
In addition, the Commission took into account that the employer had sent a uniform text message to all workers whose contracts were due to expire on 2025.12.31, that the criteria for requiring a separate consent form only from those aged 75 or older and from those who had caused traffic accidents resulting in losses of at least KRW 2 million had been set irrespective of union membership, and that neither the worker nor the union had produced any objective evidence to support the allegation that the employer had the intent to commit an unfair labor practice. On this basis, the Commission held that the allegation that the termination of the employment contract constituted an unfair labor practice was groundless. Consequently, it ruled that the dismissal in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Fixed-term workers should be aware that, where the employment contract clearly states that the employment relationship “naturally terminates upon expiry of the term,” where the workplace rules of employment and collective agreement contain no provisions imposing an obligation or procedure for renewal, and where there is no actual practice of repeated renewals, it is very difficult to have a legitimate expectation of renewal recognized. To allege an unfair labor practice based on union activities, it is important to secure objective materials showing, for example, that renewal decisions differed depending on union membership, or that disadvantageous criteria were applied only to union members.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
When operating fixed-term employment contracts, it is advisable to clearly stipulate the contract term and a clause stating that “the employment relationship terminates upon expiry of the term” in the employment contract, and to manage the workplace rules of employment and collective agreement so that no ambiguous wording can be interpreted as imposing an obligation to renew. In addition, when setting criteria for limiting renewal—such as age 75 or older, or involvement in a serious traffic accident as the at-fault party—it is important to document that such criteria are clearly linked to business needs, safety, and accountability, and to apply them consistently regardless of union membership in order to prevent disputes over unfair labor practices.
In disputes over unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices of this type, the decisive factors are whether there exist any provisions, practices, or specific promises that can support recognition of a legitimate expectation of renewal, and the extent to which objective evidence has been secured to substantiate differential treatment based on union activities. These points should always be kept in mind in practice.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal existed
Given that the workplace rules of employment and collective agreement contained no provisions on renewal of employment contracts, that the worker’s employment contract expressly stated that the employment relationship would naturally terminate upon expiry of the contract term, that the parties had entered into an employment contract only once, and that, at the time of renewal of the 2026 employment contracts, the employer required the execution of a separate consent form and thereby imposed restrictions on renewal, it cannot be deemed that any relationship of trust or practice was formed between the employer and the worker regarding renewal of the employment contract. Accordingly, no legitimate expectation of renewal is recognized. Therefore, there is no need to further examine whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
B. Whether the termination of the employment contract constituted an unfair labor practice
The employer sent text messages providing guidance on matters relating to the employment contract to all workers whose contracts were due to expire on 2025.12.31, irrespective of the labor union to which they belonged, and required a separate consent form only from those aged 75 or older and from those who had caused traffic accidents resulting in losses of at least KRW 2 million. Considering these facts, together with the fact that neither the worker nor the labor union has presented objective evidence sufficient to confirm the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice, the allegation of an unfair labor practice must be deemed groundless.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal existed
Given that the workplace rules of employment and collective agreement contained no provisions on renewal of employment contracts, that the worker’s employment contract expressly stated that the employment relationship would naturally terminate upon expiry of the contract term, that the parties had entered into an employment contract only once, and that, at the time of renewal of the 2026 employment contracts, the employer required the execution of a separate consent form and thereby imposed restrictions on renewal, it cannot be deemed that any relationship of trust or practice was formed between the employer and the worker regarding renewal of the employment contract. Accordingly, no legitimate expectation of renewal is recognized. Therefore, there is no need to further examine whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
B. Whether the termination of the employment contract constituted an unfair labor practice
The employer sent text messages providing guidance on matters relating to the employment contract to all workers whose contracts were due to expire on 2025.12.31, irrespective of the labor union to which they belonged, and required a separate consent form only from those aged 75 or older and from those who had caused traffic accidents resulting in losses of at least KRW 2 million. Considering these facts, together with the fact that neither the worker nor the labor union has presented objective evidence sufficient to confirm the employer’s intent to commit an unfair labor practice, the allegation of an unfair labor practice must be deemed groundless.
/
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (age 75+ · traffic accident consent form), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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, “‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Written Apology · Workplace Conflict)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (age 75+ · traffic accident consent form) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Age 75+ · Traffic Accident Consent Form).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
