Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Unfair Dismissal Involving “Denial of Employee Status (Senior Pastor)” (Unfair Dismissal 352)
- Date2026/04/06 04:13
- Read 170
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (senior pastor).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae10200 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.23 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Although there were elements indicating a subordinate employment relationship, such as the employer deciding the pastor’s assigned chapel, paying a fixed stipend, and requiring attendance at a weekly ministers’ meeting, the Commission noted that: (i) church staff members are hired through an open recruitment process set out in the work rules and then work under a written employment contract, whereas pastors work under a written ordination oath; (ii) in conducting worship and related activities, pastors enjoy considerable autonomy, and there are inherent limits on the employer’s ability to issue specific instructions and exercise supervision; (iii) …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a church senior pastor who filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that his removal from office constituted unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged that there were certain elements of a subordinate employment relationship, such as the applicant’s assignment to a specific chapel, receipt of a fixed stipend, and attendance at ministers’ meetings. Nevertheless, the Commission focused its analysis on whether the applicant qualified as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. It ultimately held that the applicant did not fall within the definition of an employee under the Labor Standards Act and therefore dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a religious worker such as a church senior pastor, who is assigned to a chapel, receives a fixed stipend, and attends regular meetings—thus displaying a certain degree of subordination—qualifies as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act and may therefore seek a remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case recognized that there were some elements of a subordinate employment relationship, in that the employer determined the pastor’s assigned chapel, paid a fixed stipend, and required attendance at a weekly ministers’ meeting. At the same time, the panel took into account that, whereas ordinary church staff members are hired through open recruitment procedures prescribed in the work rules and then work under written employment contracts, pastors work under written ordination oaths; that pastors enjoy considerable autonomy in religious activities such as worship services and visitation, making it inherently difficult for the employer to exercise concrete and individualized direction and supervision; that no prescribed working hours or rest periods were set and actual attendance and departure times were not managed; that although the pastor paid income tax as a religious worker, he was not enrolled in the four major social insurances, and this fact alone could not support recognition of employee status; that in addition to the stipend from the employer, he received separate honoraria or tickets from congregants when conducting visitations or officiating at funerals, and his engagement in other economic activities such as part-time work or employment in a business was not restricted; that in related court proceedings, pastors in the same position were held not to be employees, and that judgment was finalized by the Supreme Court; and that wage-arrears complaints filed with the local labor office by pastors in the same position were closed without investigation on the ground that no subordinate employment relationship existed. Taking all of these factors together, the panel concluded that the applicant was not an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
The dismissal in this case was therefore not regarded as a dismissal of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act, and the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was rejected on the ground that the prerequisite of employee status was not met.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Religious workers, freelancers, and those working under consignment or subcontracting arrangements should be aware that, even if they personally consider themselves to be employees, employee status under the Labor Standards Act is determined separately based on the “substantive subordinate employment relationship.” Certain elements alone—such as assignment to a chapel or payment of a fixed stipend—may be insufficient. Before formulating a strategy for an unfair dismissal remedy application or for claims for wages or severance pay, it is important to comprehensively examine various indicators, including whether an employment contract was executed, whether the work rules apply, whether working hours and place of work are designated, and the specificity of directions and supervision.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
For employers such as religious organizations, non-profit corporations, and entities utilizing consignment or subcontracting structures, it is important to clearly distinguish between personnel who, in substance, qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act and those who do not, and to design and operate hiring procedures, contract forms, compensation structures, and chains of command in a consistent manner. In particular, by consulting with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, employers should proactively review and refine relevant rules, documentation, and operational practices so that, in the event of collective redundancies or unfair dismissal disputes, they do not lose from the outset on the issue of employee status.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Although there were elements indicating a subordinate employment relationship, such as the employer deciding the pastor’s assigned chapel, paying a fixed stipend, and requiring attendance at a weekly ministers’ meeting, the Commission found as follows: (i) whereas church staff members are hired through the open recruitment procedures set out in the work rules and then work under written employment contracts, pastors work under written ordination oaths; (ii) pastors enjoy considerable autonomy in conducting worship and related activities, and there are limits on the employer’s ability to issue specific instructions and exercise supervision; (iii) the worker and employer did not set prescribed working hours or rest periods, and actual attendance and departure times were not verified; (iv) although the pastor paid income tax as a religious worker, he was not enrolled in the four major social insurances, and this fact alone does not suffice to regard him as an employee; (v) in addition to receiving a stipend from the employer, he received honoraria or tickets from congregants when conducting visitations or officiating at funerals, and there was no prohibition on engaging in other economic activities such as part-time work or employment in a business; (vi) in related court decisions, pastors in the same position were held not to be employees, and those decisions were finalized by the Supreme Court; and (vii) wage-arrears complaints filed with the local labor office by pastors in the same position as the worker were closed without investigation because a subordinate employment relationship was not recognized. In light of all of the above, the Commission determined that the pastor did not qualify as an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Although there were elements indicating a subordinate employment relationship, such as the employer deciding the pastor’s assigned chapel, paying a fixed stipend, and requiring attendance at a weekly ministers’ meeting, the Commission found as follows: (i) whereas church staff members are hired through the open recruitment procedures set out in the work rules and then work under written employment contracts, pastors work under written ordination oaths; (ii) pastors enjoy considerable autonomy in conducting worship and related activities, and there are limits on the employer’s ability to issue specific instructions and exercise supervision; (iii) the worker and employer did not set prescribed working hours or rest periods, and actual attendance and departure times were not verified; (iv) although the pastor paid income tax as a religious worker, he was not enrolled in the four major social insurances, and this fact alone does not suffice to regard him as an employee; (v) in addition to receiving a stipend from the employer, he received honoraria or tickets from congregants when conducting visitations or officiating at funerals, and there was no prohibition on engaging in other economic activities such as part-time work or employment in a business; (vi) in related court decisions, pastors in the same position were held not to be employees, and those decisions were finalized by the Supreme Court; and (vii) wage-arrears complaints filed with the local labor office by pastors in the same position as the worker were closed without investigation because a subordinate employment relationship was not recognized. In light of all of the above, the Commission determined that the pastor did not qualify as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Expiration of Contract Period (Letter of Resignation · Receipt of Severance Pay)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Revocation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Denial of Business Transfer)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: - Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (senior pastor), 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, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Revocation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Denial of Business Transfer)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to denial of employee status (senior pastor) can be viewed at “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Senior Pastor).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (senior pastor).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae10200 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.23 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Although there were elements indicating a subordinate employment relationship, such as the employer deciding the pastor’s assigned chapel, paying a fixed stipend, and requiring attendance at a weekly ministers’ meeting, the Commission noted that: (i) church staff members are hired through an open recruitment process set out in the work rules and then work under a written employment contract, whereas pastors work under a written ordination oath; (ii) in conducting worship and related activities, pastors enjoy considerable autonomy, and there are inherent limits on the employer’s ability to issue specific instructions and exercise supervision; (iii) …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a church senior pastor who filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that his removal from office constituted unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged that there were certain elements of a subordinate employment relationship, such as the applicant’s assignment to a specific chapel, receipt of a fixed stipend, and attendance at ministers’ meetings. Nevertheless, the Commission focused its analysis on whether the applicant qualified as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. It ultimately held that the applicant did not fall within the definition of an employee under the Labor Standards Act and therefore dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a religious worker such as a church senior pastor, who is assigned to a chapel, receives a fixed stipend, and attends regular meetings—thus displaying a certain degree of subordination—qualifies as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act and may therefore seek a remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case recognized that there were some elements of a subordinate employment relationship, in that the employer determined the pastor’s assigned chapel, paid a fixed stipend, and required attendance at a weekly ministers’ meeting. At the same time, the panel took into account that, whereas ordinary church staff members are hired through open recruitment procedures prescribed in the work rules and then work under written employment contracts, pastors work under written ordination oaths; that pastors enjoy considerable autonomy in religious activities such as worship services and visitation, making it inherently difficult for the employer to exercise concrete and individualized direction and supervision; that no prescribed working hours or rest periods were set and actual attendance and departure times were not managed; that although the pastor paid income tax as a religious worker, he was not enrolled in the four major social insurances, and this fact alone could not support recognition of employee status; that in addition to the stipend from the employer, he received separate honoraria or tickets from congregants when conducting visitations or officiating at funerals, and his engagement in other economic activities such as part-time work or employment in a business was not restricted; that in related court proceedings, pastors in the same position were held not to be employees, and that judgment was finalized by the Supreme Court; and that wage-arrears complaints filed with the local labor office by pastors in the same position were closed without investigation on the ground that no subordinate employment relationship existed. Taking all of these factors together, the panel concluded that the applicant was not an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
The dismissal in this case was therefore not regarded as a dismissal of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act, and the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was rejected on the ground that the prerequisite of employee status was not met.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Religious workers, freelancers, and those working under consignment or subcontracting arrangements should be aware that, even if they personally consider themselves to be employees, employee status under the Labor Standards Act is determined separately based on the “substantive subordinate employment relationship.” Certain elements alone—such as assignment to a chapel or payment of a fixed stipend—may be insufficient. Before formulating a strategy for an unfair dismissal remedy application or for claims for wages or severance pay, it is important to comprehensively examine various indicators, including whether an employment contract was executed, whether the work rules apply, whether working hours and place of work are designated, and the specificity of directions and supervision.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
For employers such as religious organizations, non-profit corporations, and entities utilizing consignment or subcontracting structures, it is important to clearly distinguish between personnel who, in substance, qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act and those who do not, and to design and operate hiring procedures, contract forms, compensation structures, and chains of command in a consistent manner. In particular, by consulting with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, employers should proactively review and refine relevant rules, documentation, and operational practices so that, in the event of collective redundancies or unfair dismissal disputes, they do not lose from the outset on the issue of employee status.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Although there were elements indicating a subordinate employment relationship, such as the employer deciding the pastor’s assigned chapel, paying a fixed stipend, and requiring attendance at a weekly ministers’ meeting, the Commission found as follows: (i) whereas church staff members are hired through the open recruitment procedures set out in the work rules and then work under written employment contracts, pastors work under written ordination oaths; (ii) pastors enjoy considerable autonomy in conducting worship and related activities, and there are limits on the employer’s ability to issue specific instructions and exercise supervision; (iii) the worker and employer did not set prescribed working hours or rest periods, and actual attendance and departure times were not verified; (iv) although the pastor paid income tax as a religious worker, he was not enrolled in the four major social insurances, and this fact alone does not suffice to regard him as an employee; (v) in addition to receiving a stipend from the employer, he received honoraria or tickets from congregants when conducting visitations or officiating at funerals, and there was no prohibition on engaging in other economic activities such as part-time work or employment in a business; (vi) in related court decisions, pastors in the same position were held not to be employees, and those decisions were finalized by the Supreme Court; and (vii) wage-arrears complaints filed with the local labor office by pastors in the same position as the worker were closed without investigation because a subordinate employment relationship was not recognized. In light of all of the above, the Commission determined that the pastor did not qualify as an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Although there were elements indicating a subordinate employment relationship, such as the employer deciding the pastor’s assigned chapel, paying a fixed stipend, and requiring attendance at a weekly ministers’ meeting, the Commission found as follows: (i) whereas church staff members are hired through the open recruitment procedures set out in the work rules and then work under written employment contracts, pastors work under written ordination oaths; (ii) pastors enjoy considerable autonomy in conducting worship and related activities, and there are limits on the employer’s ability to issue specific instructions and exercise supervision; (iii) the worker and employer did not set prescribed working hours or rest periods, and actual attendance and departure times were not verified; (iv) although the pastor paid income tax as a religious worker, he was not enrolled in the four major social insurances, and this fact alone does not suffice to regard him as an employee; (v) in addition to receiving a stipend from the employer, he received honoraria or tickets from congregants when conducting visitations or officiating at funerals, and there was no prohibition on engaging in other economic activities such as part-time work or employment in a business; (vi) in related court decisions, pastors in the same position were held not to be employees, and those decisions were finalized by the Supreme Court; and (vii) wage-arrears complaints filed with the local labor office by pastors in the same position as the worker were closed without investigation because a subordinate employment relationship was not recognized. In light of all of the above, the Commission determined that the pastor did not qualify as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Expiration of Contract Period (Letter of Resignation · Receipt of Severance Pay)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Revocation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Denial of Business Transfer)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: - Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (senior pastor), 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, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Revocation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Denial of Business Transfer)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to denial of employee status (senior pastor) can be viewed at “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Senior Pastor).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
