Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Defect in Written Notice (Foreman’s Dismissal by Text Message)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 370)
- Date2026/04/13 04:12
- Read 167
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “defect in written notice (foreman’s dismissal by text message).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee fully prevailed on the issue of “defect in written notice (foreman’s dismissal by text message).”
Decision-making body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 10 ○○○
Date of decision: 2026.02.19 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a dismissal existed
(1) The foreman, Mr. Park ○-saeng, notified the employee of dismissal on 1 January 2026 and clearly stated that this was the company’s official position;
(2) Although the employer argued that the dismissal notice was given by a person without authority, the employer only sent a text message requesting the employee to return to work after the employee had already filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Commission. In light of this, it was deemed that a dismissal existed based on the employer’s implied intent. Taking these circumstances together, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the workplace foreman notified the employee of dismissal by text message and other means. After the employee filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Labor Relations Commission, the employer belatedly sent a text message requesting the employee to return to work.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined not only whether a dismissal existed, but also whether the employer had violated Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, which requires written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, and also ruled on the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are:
“Whether a dismissal notice given by an on-site manager such as a foreman can be regarded as the employer’s ‘official position,’ and whether a dismissal carried out solely by oral or text notification without a separate written dismissal notice is valid under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that:
– The foreman, Mr. Park ○-saeng, when notifying the employee of dismissal, clearly stated that this was the company’s official position;
– Although the employer argued that the notice was given by a person without authority, the employer only sent a text message requesting the employee to return to work after the employee had filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Commission;
– Taking these circumstances together, it could be regarded that a dismissal existed based on the employer’s implied intent.
Accordingly, the termination of the employment relationship with the employee was held to constitute a dismissal.
In addition, the Commission noted that:
– When dismissing the employee, the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act;
– Written notice of the reasons and timing of dismissal is a mandatory provision intended to clarify the existence, timing, and grounds of dismissal, to prevent disputes, and to guarantee the employee’s right of defense;
– Sending a text message or providing an oral explanation after the fact cannot cure such procedural defects.
For these reasons, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was procedurally defective and therefore unfair.
Furthermore, the Commission accepted the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and found it appropriate to order payment of an amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision as monetary compensation.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if an on-site manager such as a foreman or team leader informs you not to come to work anymore and states that this is the “company’s official position,” you should be aware that this may be substantively evaluated as a dismissal even if, in form, that person is not the official personnel authority.
Also, if you receive a dismissal notice but do not receive a written document specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, you should consider filing an unfair dismissal relief application with the Labor Relations Commission on the basis of a procedural defect arising from a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to reduce disputes over whether a dismissal has occurred, it is necessary to clearly instruct foremen, site managers, and similar personnel not to make dismissal-related statements in the form of a “company’s official position,” and to refine internal regulations governing the exercise of personnel authority.
In addition, when dismissing an employee, the employer must provide in advance a written document that specifically sets out the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. Employers should be aware that notifying dismissal only orally or by text message and then attempting to supplement the procedure afterward may constitute a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and render the dismissal invalid.
In cases of this type where the existence of unfair dismissal is at issue, it is important to carefully organize the facts focusing on: (i) the circumstances evidencing the employer’s expression of intent from which the existence of a dismissal can be recognized, and (ii) whether written notice of the reasons and timing of dismissal was provided. It is advisable to respond strategically from the Labor Relations Commission stage with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal existed
(1) The foreman, Mr. Park ○-saeng, notified the employee of dismissal on 1 January 2026 and clearly stated that this was the company’s official position;
(2) Although the employer argued that the dismissal notice was given by a person without authority, in light of the fact that the employer only sent a text message requesting the employee to return to work after the employee had filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Commission, it appears that a dismissal existed based on the employer’s implied intent.
Taking these circumstances together, the dismissal notice given to the employee cannot be regarded as having been made by a person without authority, and the termination of the employment relationship constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
When dismissing the employee, the employer violated Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by failing to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal is procedurally defective and unfair.
C. Whether to issue a monetary compensation order
It is appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of an amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision as monetary compensation.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether a dismissal existed
(1) The foreman, Mr. Park ○-saeng, notified the employee of dismissal on 1 January 2026 and clearly stated that this was the company’s official position;
(2) Although the employer argued that the dismissal notice was given by a person without authority, in light of the fact that the employer only sent a text message requesting the employee to return to work after the employee had filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Commission, it appears that a dismissal existed based on the employer’s implied intent.
Taking these circumstances together, the dismissal notice given to the employee cannot be regarded as having been made by a person without authority, and the termination of the employment relationship constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
When dismissing the employee, the employer violated Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by failing to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal is procedurally defective and unfair.
C. Whether to issue a monetary compensation order
It is appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of an amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision as monetary compensation. /
[See More Related Decisions]
– “Unfair Dismissal Decision on the Existence of Dismissal (Statement Prohibiting Attendance at Work)”
– “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)”
– “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (foreman’s dismissal by text message), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on the Existence of Dismissal (Statement Prohibiting Attendance at Work),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to defect in written notice (foreman’s dismissal by text message) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Defect in Written Notice (Foreman’s Dismissal by Text Message).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee fully prevailed on the issue of “defect in written notice (foreman’s dismissal by text message).”
Decision-making body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 10 ○○○
Date of decision: 2026.02.19 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a dismissal existed
(1) The foreman, Mr. Park ○-saeng, notified the employee of dismissal on 1 January 2026 and clearly stated that this was the company’s official position;
(2) Although the employer argued that the dismissal notice was given by a person without authority, the employer only sent a text message requesting the employee to return to work after the employee had already filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Commission. In light of this, it was deemed that a dismissal existed based on the employer’s implied intent. Taking these circumstances together, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the workplace foreman notified the employee of dismissal by text message and other means. After the employee filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Labor Relations Commission, the employer belatedly sent a text message requesting the employee to return to work.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined not only whether a dismissal existed, but also whether the employer had violated Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, which requires written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, and also ruled on the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are:
“Whether a dismissal notice given by an on-site manager such as a foreman can be regarded as the employer’s ‘official position,’ and whether a dismissal carried out solely by oral or text notification without a separate written dismissal notice is valid under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that:
– The foreman, Mr. Park ○-saeng, when notifying the employee of dismissal, clearly stated that this was the company’s official position;
– Although the employer argued that the notice was given by a person without authority, the employer only sent a text message requesting the employee to return to work after the employee had filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Commission;
– Taking these circumstances together, it could be regarded that a dismissal existed based on the employer’s implied intent.
Accordingly, the termination of the employment relationship with the employee was held to constitute a dismissal.
In addition, the Commission noted that:
– When dismissing the employee, the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act;
– Written notice of the reasons and timing of dismissal is a mandatory provision intended to clarify the existence, timing, and grounds of dismissal, to prevent disputes, and to guarantee the employee’s right of defense;
– Sending a text message or providing an oral explanation after the fact cannot cure such procedural defects.
For these reasons, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was procedurally defective and therefore unfair.
Furthermore, the Commission accepted the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and found it appropriate to order payment of an amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision as monetary compensation.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if an on-site manager such as a foreman or team leader informs you not to come to work anymore and states that this is the “company’s official position,” you should be aware that this may be substantively evaluated as a dismissal even if, in form, that person is not the official personnel authority.
Also, if you receive a dismissal notice but do not receive a written document specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, you should consider filing an unfair dismissal relief application with the Labor Relations Commission on the basis of a procedural defect arising from a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to reduce disputes over whether a dismissal has occurred, it is necessary to clearly instruct foremen, site managers, and similar personnel not to make dismissal-related statements in the form of a “company’s official position,” and to refine internal regulations governing the exercise of personnel authority.
In addition, when dismissing an employee, the employer must provide in advance a written document that specifically sets out the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. Employers should be aware that notifying dismissal only orally or by text message and then attempting to supplement the procedure afterward may constitute a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and render the dismissal invalid.
In cases of this type where the existence of unfair dismissal is at issue, it is important to carefully organize the facts focusing on: (i) the circumstances evidencing the employer’s expression of intent from which the existence of a dismissal can be recognized, and (ii) whether written notice of the reasons and timing of dismissal was provided. It is advisable to respond strategically from the Labor Relations Commission stage with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal existed
(1) The foreman, Mr. Park ○-saeng, notified the employee of dismissal on 1 January 2026 and clearly stated that this was the company’s official position;
(2) Although the employer argued that the dismissal notice was given by a person without authority, in light of the fact that the employer only sent a text message requesting the employee to return to work after the employee had filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Commission, it appears that a dismissal existed based on the employer’s implied intent.
Taking these circumstances together, the dismissal notice given to the employee cannot be regarded as having been made by a person without authority, and the termination of the employment relationship constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
When dismissing the employee, the employer violated Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by failing to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal is procedurally defective and unfair.
C. Whether to issue a monetary compensation order
It is appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of an amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision as monetary compensation.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether a dismissal existed
(1) The foreman, Mr. Park ○-saeng, notified the employee of dismissal on 1 January 2026 and clearly stated that this was the company’s official position;
(2) Although the employer argued that the dismissal notice was given by a person without authority, in light of the fact that the employer only sent a text message requesting the employee to return to work after the employee had filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Commission, it appears that a dismissal existed based on the employer’s implied intent.
Taking these circumstances together, the dismissal notice given to the employee cannot be regarded as having been made by a person without authority, and the termination of the employment relationship constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
When dismissing the employee, the employer violated Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by failing to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal is procedurally defective and unfair.
C. Whether to issue a monetary compensation order
It is appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of an amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision as monetary compensation. /
[See More Related Decisions]
– “Unfair Dismissal Decision on the Existence of Dismissal (Statement Prohibiting Attendance at Work)”
– “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)”
– “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (foreman’s dismissal by text message), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on the Existence of Dismissal (Statement Prohibiting Attendance at Work),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to defect in written notice (foreman’s dismissal by text message) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Defect in Written Notice (Foreman’s Dismissal by Text Message).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
