Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Expression of Intent to Resign (Group Chat Remarks)” (Unfair Dismissal 80)
- Date2026/01/11 20:10
- Read 197
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision relating to “expression of intent to resign (group chat remarks)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3993 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.21
- Summary of outcome: (i) It could not be established that, during the interview between the parties, the CEO made statements or engaged in conduct that coerced the employee to resign; (ii) during a telephone call with the store manager, the employee stated, “If this is something that can be resolved by my quitting, I will quit. If that is better for the store, I think it might be better for me to take responsibility and quit...”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, following a conflict between the employee and the CEO and the subsequent processing of the employee’s departure, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employee’s application in a case where the key issue was whether the employer had dismissed the employee, or whether the employment relationship had ended due to the employee’s voluntary resignation.
In the course of this decision, the criteria distinguishing “unfair dismissal” from “resignation” were once again clarified. This is a type of issue that frequently arises in practice handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is:
“When the employee’s statements and subsequent conduct in the context of conflict with the CEO are considered as a whole, did the employment relationship terminate due to the employer’s dismissal, or due to the employee’s genuine expression of intent to resign?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found as follows: it could not be objectively confirmed that, during the interview between the parties, the CEO made statements or engaged in conduct that coerced the employee to resign; the employee stated during a telephone call with the store manager, “If this is something that can be resolved by my quitting, I will quit”; the employee posted a message in the employee group chat to the effect that, due to conflict with the CEO, “I have suddenly come to resign,” and “If you want me to quit, I will quit,” and then in fact did not report to work; the employer understood this as a clear expression of the employee’s intent to resign, settled the employee’s wages, and processed the resignation; and although the employee sent a text message the next day withdrawing the intent to resign, there was no evidence that the employer agreed to such withdrawal.
On this basis, the Commission determined that the employee had clearly expressed an intention to terminate the employment contract on his or her own initiative, and that the employer processed the resignation on the basis of that expression of intent.
Accordingly, the Commission held that no dismissal existed in this case, and that the allegation of unfair dismissal was without merit.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, if they use expressions such as “I will quit” in a situation where emotions are running high, those words may be recognized as an expression of intent to resign, even if made orally or via messenger.
Once an employee has expressed an intent to resign, if the employer has begun processing the resignation on that basis, unilateral withdrawal of that intent will generally be difficult absent special circumstances. It will also be difficult thereafter to assert unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, even where an employee expresses an intent to resign orally or in a group chat, it is advisable, for purposes of preventing disputes, to obtain a written document such as a resignation letter or resignation confirmation clearly stating that intent.
However, if circumstances remain that could give rise to suspicion that the employee was pressured or coerced into resigning, the resignation may later be recharacterized in an unfair dismissal dispute as a “dismissal in the form of voluntary resignation.” Accordingly, employers should objectively record the interview process and communications, and make it clear that the resignation was a voluntary choice, not the result of coercion.
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(i) It could not be established that, during the interview between the parties, the CEO made statements or engaged in conduct that coerced the employee to resign;
(ii) during a telephone call with the store manager, the employee stated, “If this is something that can be resolved by my quitting, I will quit. If that is better for the store, I think it might be better for me to take responsibility and quit”;
(iii) the employee posted the following message in the employee group chat and then did not report to work: “Due to conflict with the CEO, I have suddenly come to resign. I said to the CEO, ‘Do you want me to quit? If so, I will quit. Please take care.’”;
(iv) at the hearing, the employer stated, “We believed the employee’s intent to resign was clear, so we paid the wages and processed the resignation”;
(v) the day after resignation, the employee sent a text message to the store manager withdrawing the intent to resign, but there is no evidence that the employer agreed to this.
In light of all of the above, the Commission determined that the employment relationship was terminated by the employee’s expression of intent to resign, and therefore no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(i) It could not be established that, during the interview between the parties, the CEO made statements or engaged in conduct that coerced the employee to resign;
(ii) during a telephone call with the store manager, the employee stated, “If this is something that can be resolved by my quitting, I will quit. If that is better for the store, I think it might be better for me to take responsibility and quit”;
(iii) the employee posted the following message in the employee group chat and then did not report to work: “Due to conflict with the CEO, I have suddenly come to resign. I said to the CEO, ‘Do you want me to quit? If so, I will quit. Please take care.’”;
(iv) at the hearing, the employer stated, “We believed the employee’s intent to resign was clear, so we paid the wages and processed the resignation”;
(v) the day after resignation, the employee sent a text message to the store manager withdrawing the intent to resign, but there is no evidence that the employer agreed to this.
Taking all of these circumstances together, the Commission determined that the employment relationship was terminated by the employee’s expression of intent to resign, and therefore no dismissal existed.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘expression of intent to resign (telephone call resignation remarks)’”
- “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘non-formation of hiring decision (absence of offer letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘dismissal of application (non-appearance at hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (group chat remarks), 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 relating to ‘failure to satisfy requirements for redundancy dismissal (workout company)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to expression of intent to resign (group chat remarks) can be viewed together on the “List of decisions relating to expression of intent to resign (group chat remarks)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision relating to “expression of intent to resign (group chat remarks)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3993 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.21
- Summary of outcome: (i) It could not be established that, during the interview between the parties, the CEO made statements or engaged in conduct that coerced the employee to resign; (ii) during a telephone call with the store manager, the employee stated, “If this is something that can be resolved by my quitting, I will quit. If that is better for the store, I think it might be better for me to take responsibility and quit...”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, following a conflict between the employee and the CEO and the subsequent processing of the employee’s departure, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employee’s application in a case where the key issue was whether the employer had dismissed the employee, or whether the employment relationship had ended due to the employee’s voluntary resignation.
In the course of this decision, the criteria distinguishing “unfair dismissal” from “resignation” were once again clarified. This is a type of issue that frequently arises in practice handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is:
“When the employee’s statements and subsequent conduct in the context of conflict with the CEO are considered as a whole, did the employment relationship terminate due to the employer’s dismissal, or due to the employee’s genuine expression of intent to resign?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found as follows: it could not be objectively confirmed that, during the interview between the parties, the CEO made statements or engaged in conduct that coerced the employee to resign; the employee stated during a telephone call with the store manager, “If this is something that can be resolved by my quitting, I will quit”; the employee posted a message in the employee group chat to the effect that, due to conflict with the CEO, “I have suddenly come to resign,” and “If you want me to quit, I will quit,” and then in fact did not report to work; the employer understood this as a clear expression of the employee’s intent to resign, settled the employee’s wages, and processed the resignation; and although the employee sent a text message the next day withdrawing the intent to resign, there was no evidence that the employer agreed to such withdrawal.
On this basis, the Commission determined that the employee had clearly expressed an intention to terminate the employment contract on his or her own initiative, and that the employer processed the resignation on the basis of that expression of intent.
Accordingly, the Commission held that no dismissal existed in this case, and that the allegation of unfair dismissal was without merit.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, if they use expressions such as “I will quit” in a situation where emotions are running high, those words may be recognized as an expression of intent to resign, even if made orally or via messenger.
Once an employee has expressed an intent to resign, if the employer has begun processing the resignation on that basis, unilateral withdrawal of that intent will generally be difficult absent special circumstances. It will also be difficult thereafter to assert unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, even where an employee expresses an intent to resign orally or in a group chat, it is advisable, for purposes of preventing disputes, to obtain a written document such as a resignation letter or resignation confirmation clearly stating that intent.
However, if circumstances remain that could give rise to suspicion that the employee was pressured or coerced into resigning, the resignation may later be recharacterized in an unfair dismissal dispute as a “dismissal in the form of voluntary resignation.” Accordingly, employers should objectively record the interview process and communications, and make it clear that the resignation was a voluntary choice, not the result of coercion.
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(i) It could not be established that, during the interview between the parties, the CEO made statements or engaged in conduct that coerced the employee to resign;
(ii) during a telephone call with the store manager, the employee stated, “If this is something that can be resolved by my quitting, I will quit. If that is better for the store, I think it might be better for me to take responsibility and quit”;
(iii) the employee posted the following message in the employee group chat and then did not report to work: “Due to conflict with the CEO, I have suddenly come to resign. I said to the CEO, ‘Do you want me to quit? If so, I will quit. Please take care.’”;
(iv) at the hearing, the employer stated, “We believed the employee’s intent to resign was clear, so we paid the wages and processed the resignation”;
(v) the day after resignation, the employee sent a text message to the store manager withdrawing the intent to resign, but there is no evidence that the employer agreed to this.
In light of all of the above, the Commission determined that the employment relationship was terminated by the employee’s expression of intent to resign, and therefore no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(i) It could not be established that, during the interview between the parties, the CEO made statements or engaged in conduct that coerced the employee to resign;
(ii) during a telephone call with the store manager, the employee stated, “If this is something that can be resolved by my quitting, I will quit. If that is better for the store, I think it might be better for me to take responsibility and quit”;
(iii) the employee posted the following message in the employee group chat and then did not report to work: “Due to conflict with the CEO, I have suddenly come to resign. I said to the CEO, ‘Do you want me to quit? If so, I will quit. Please take care.’”;
(iv) at the hearing, the employer stated, “We believed the employee’s intent to resign was clear, so we paid the wages and processed the resignation”;
(v) the day after resignation, the employee sent a text message to the store manager withdrawing the intent to resign, but there is no evidence that the employer agreed to this.
Taking all of these circumstances together, the Commission determined that the employment relationship was terminated by the employee’s expression of intent to resign, and therefore no dismissal existed.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘expression of intent to resign (telephone call resignation remarks)’”
- “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘non-formation of hiring decision (absence of offer letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘dismissal of application (non-appearance at hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (group chat remarks), 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 relating to ‘failure to satisfy requirements for redundancy dismissal (workout company)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to expression of intent to resign (group chat remarks) can be viewed together on the “List of decisions relating to expression of intent to resign (group chat remarks)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
