Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Existence of a Conditional Job Offer (Email Postponing Final Acceptance)” (Unfair Dismissal 94)
- Date2026/01/12 13:24
- Read 221
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision concerning “existence of a conditional job offer (email postponing final acceptance)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae3908 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of outcome: (1) The worker passed the medical examination stage in the recruitment process but was never notified by the employer of final acceptance; (2) On 19 June 2025, the employer …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, a job applicant who claimed unfair dismissal filed an application for remedy with the Commission, but the Commission dismissed the application on the ground that no conditional job offer (pre‑employment contract) had been formed at all. The applicant argued that, having passed the medical examination, the hiring was in substance confirmed, and that the subsequent notice of rejection constituted unfair dismissal. The employer, on the other hand, argued that it had never notified the applicant of final acceptance and had merely been continuing with the recruitment process.
Whether a conditional job offer has been formed is a recurring issue in unfair dismissal disputes in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&, and disputes frequently arise at the “recruitment stage,” where the legal relationships are often less clear than in cases of redundancy (collective dismissal).
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where the recruitment process has progressed substantially and the applicant has passed the medical examination, but a notice of rejection is given without any final acceptance notice from the employer, does a conditional job offer arise such that an employment relationship exists which can be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer had only proceeded with the recruitment process up to the stage where the applicant passed the medical examination and had never notified the worker of final acceptance; that, in its email requesting an explanation, the employer expressly stated that ‘the notice of final acceptance and the start date of employment may be postponed,’ thereby making it clear that the hiring decision was still fluid; and that the employer subsequently issued a formal notice of final rejection.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that there was nothing to indicate that a definitive hiring decision or final acceptance had been communicated to the worker, and therefore it was difficult to find that an employment contract relationship amounting to a conditional job offer had been formed between the parties.
The panel therefore determined that the “dismissal” in this case was merely a notice of rejection in the course of the recruitment process at a time when no employment relationship had yet been formed, and thus did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, even if you have passed all stages such as document screening, interviews, and medical examinations, you should be aware that, unless the employer has expressly communicated “final acceptance” or an equivalent definitive intention to hire, it is difficult, as a legal matter, to regard a conditional job offer as having been formed. In particular, where emails, text messages, or recruitment notices contain reserved expressions such as “postponement of final acceptance notice” or “start date of employment subject to change,” you should bear in mind that it may be difficult to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal later.
Accordingly, to reduce the risk of disputes at the recruitment stage, it is necessary to carefully retain the employer’s documents and emails regarding how final acceptance and confirmation of employment are expressed, and whether they are conditional or definitive, and, where there is any ambiguity, to clarify your hiring status in writing or by email.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important at the recruitment stage to clearly distinguish and communicate the status of “final acceptance” from that of “process ongoing,” and, in particular, where the hiring decision is being reserved pending additional checks such as medical examinations or background checks, to clearly state this in writing or by email. As in this case, the expression that “the notice of final acceptance and the start date of employment may be postponed,” explicitly indicating that the hiring decision had not yet been finalized, worked in the employer’s favor in the Commission’s assessment and is worth noting in practice.
In addition, where a conditional job offer has already been formed and the employer then retracts it, this may in substance be treated as a dismissal, raising issues of “just cause” and compliance with procedural requirements under the Labor Standards Act. Employers should therefore complete all necessary verification procedures before notifying final acceptance, and manage the wording of final acceptance notices systematically, distinguishing clearly between definitive and conditional language.
Disputes arising at the recruitment stage can be as legally complex as unfair dismissal or redundancy cases. When an actual dispute arises, it is advisable to seek advice from a specialized organization with extensive experience in Labor Relations Commission procedures, such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The worker only passed the medical examination stage of the recruitment process and was never notified by the employer of final acceptance; (2) on 19 June 2025, the employer sent an email to the worker requesting an explanation in order to verify the facts concerning inappropriate conduct during the worker’s time in graduate school, stating that the notice of final acceptance and the start date of employment could be postponed; and (3) on 25 June 2025, the employer notified the worker of final rejection. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that the worker had merely failed the recruitment process and that there were no circumstances indicating that the employer had notified the worker of final acceptance or definitive hiring. Accordingly, it was found that no conditional job offer had been formed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
(1) The worker only passed the medical examination stage of the recruitment process and was never notified by the employer of final acceptance; (2) on 19 June 2025, the employer sent an email to the worker requesting an explanation in order to verify the facts concerning inappropriate conduct during the worker’s time in graduate school, stating that the notice of final acceptance and the start date of employment could be postponed; and (3) on 25 June 2025, the employer notified the worker of final rejection. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that the worker had merely failed the recruitment process and that there were no circumstances indicating that the employer had notified the worker of final acceptance or definitive hiring. Accordingly, it was found that no conditional job offer had been formed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair dismissal decision concerning non‑formation of a conditional job offer (absence of offer letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair dismissal decision concerning excessive disciplinary sanction (allowing a vehicle to pass during a nighttime checkpoint search)”
- “Unfair dismissal decision concerning failure to satisfy requirements for redundancy (workout company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of a conditional job offer (email postponing final acceptance), 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 concerning personnel transfer and pay cut (recognition of employee status),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of a conditional job offer (email postponing final acceptance) can be viewed together in the “List of decisions related to existence of a conditional job offer (email postponing final acceptance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision concerning “existence of a conditional job offer (email postponing final acceptance)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae3908 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of outcome: (1) The worker passed the medical examination stage in the recruitment process but was never notified by the employer of final acceptance; (2) On 19 June 2025, the employer …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, a job applicant who claimed unfair dismissal filed an application for remedy with the Commission, but the Commission dismissed the application on the ground that no conditional job offer (pre‑employment contract) had been formed at all. The applicant argued that, having passed the medical examination, the hiring was in substance confirmed, and that the subsequent notice of rejection constituted unfair dismissal. The employer, on the other hand, argued that it had never notified the applicant of final acceptance and had merely been continuing with the recruitment process.
Whether a conditional job offer has been formed is a recurring issue in unfair dismissal disputes in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&, and disputes frequently arise at the “recruitment stage,” where the legal relationships are often less clear than in cases of redundancy (collective dismissal).
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where the recruitment process has progressed substantially and the applicant has passed the medical examination, but a notice of rejection is given without any final acceptance notice from the employer, does a conditional job offer arise such that an employment relationship exists which can be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer had only proceeded with the recruitment process up to the stage where the applicant passed the medical examination and had never notified the worker of final acceptance; that, in its email requesting an explanation, the employer expressly stated that ‘the notice of final acceptance and the start date of employment may be postponed,’ thereby making it clear that the hiring decision was still fluid; and that the employer subsequently issued a formal notice of final rejection.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that there was nothing to indicate that a definitive hiring decision or final acceptance had been communicated to the worker, and therefore it was difficult to find that an employment contract relationship amounting to a conditional job offer had been formed between the parties.
The panel therefore determined that the “dismissal” in this case was merely a notice of rejection in the course of the recruitment process at a time when no employment relationship had yet been formed, and thus did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, even if you have passed all stages such as document screening, interviews, and medical examinations, you should be aware that, unless the employer has expressly communicated “final acceptance” or an equivalent definitive intention to hire, it is difficult, as a legal matter, to regard a conditional job offer as having been formed. In particular, where emails, text messages, or recruitment notices contain reserved expressions such as “postponement of final acceptance notice” or “start date of employment subject to change,” you should bear in mind that it may be difficult to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal later.
Accordingly, to reduce the risk of disputes at the recruitment stage, it is necessary to carefully retain the employer’s documents and emails regarding how final acceptance and confirmation of employment are expressed, and whether they are conditional or definitive, and, where there is any ambiguity, to clarify your hiring status in writing or by email.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important at the recruitment stage to clearly distinguish and communicate the status of “final acceptance” from that of “process ongoing,” and, in particular, where the hiring decision is being reserved pending additional checks such as medical examinations or background checks, to clearly state this in writing or by email. As in this case, the expression that “the notice of final acceptance and the start date of employment may be postponed,” explicitly indicating that the hiring decision had not yet been finalized, worked in the employer’s favor in the Commission’s assessment and is worth noting in practice.
In addition, where a conditional job offer has already been formed and the employer then retracts it, this may in substance be treated as a dismissal, raising issues of “just cause” and compliance with procedural requirements under the Labor Standards Act. Employers should therefore complete all necessary verification procedures before notifying final acceptance, and manage the wording of final acceptance notices systematically, distinguishing clearly between definitive and conditional language.
Disputes arising at the recruitment stage can be as legally complex as unfair dismissal or redundancy cases. When an actual dispute arises, it is advisable to seek advice from a specialized organization with extensive experience in Labor Relations Commission procedures, such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The worker only passed the medical examination stage of the recruitment process and was never notified by the employer of final acceptance; (2) on 19 June 2025, the employer sent an email to the worker requesting an explanation in order to verify the facts concerning inappropriate conduct during the worker’s time in graduate school, stating that the notice of final acceptance and the start date of employment could be postponed; and (3) on 25 June 2025, the employer notified the worker of final rejection. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that the worker had merely failed the recruitment process and that there were no circumstances indicating that the employer had notified the worker of final acceptance or definitive hiring. Accordingly, it was found that no conditional job offer had been formed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
(1) The worker only passed the medical examination stage of the recruitment process and was never notified by the employer of final acceptance; (2) on 19 June 2025, the employer sent an email to the worker requesting an explanation in order to verify the facts concerning inappropriate conduct during the worker’s time in graduate school, stating that the notice of final acceptance and the start date of employment could be postponed; and (3) on 25 June 2025, the employer notified the worker of final rejection. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that the worker had merely failed the recruitment process and that there were no circumstances indicating that the employer had notified the worker of final acceptance or definitive hiring. Accordingly, it was found that no conditional job offer had been formed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair dismissal decision concerning non‑formation of a conditional job offer (absence of offer letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair dismissal decision concerning excessive disciplinary sanction (allowing a vehicle to pass during a nighttime checkpoint search)”
- “Unfair dismissal decision concerning failure to satisfy requirements for redundancy (workout company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of a conditional job offer (email postponing final acceptance), 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 concerning personnel transfer and pay cut (recognition of employee status),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of a conditional job offer (email postponing final acceptance) can be viewed together in the “List of decisions related to existence of a conditional job offer (email postponing final acceptance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
