Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Existence of a Conditional Offer of Employment (Explanation Requested Regarding Inappropriate Conduct During Graduate School)” (Unfair Dismissal 97)
- Date2026/01/12 13:36
- Read 227
[Case Information]
- Case name: Decision on unfair dismissal relating to “existence of a conditional offer of employment (explanation requested regarding inappropriate conduct during graduate school)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Unfair3908 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of outcome: (1) The worker only passed the medical examination stage of the recruitment process and was never notified by the employer of final acceptance; (2) the employer, on [date omitted in excerpt] 2025, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a job applicant who claimed to have been unfairly dismissed filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission dismissed the application on the ground that no conditional offer of employment (hiring reservation) had been formed in the first place.
The employer conducted the recruitment process and notified the applicant that he had passed up to and including the medical examination. Thereafter, in order to verify the facts concerning inappropriate conduct during the applicant’s graduate school years, the employer requested an explanation and informed him that the final acceptance and start date might be postponed. The employer subsequently notified the applicant of his final rejection.
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is whether, where an applicant who had passed the medical examination and was preparing to join the company is later notified of final rejection, a conditional offer of employment had already been formed such that the rejection notice constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: the worker had only passed up to the medical examination stage of the recruitment process and had never been notified by the employer of final acceptance; the employer, when requesting an explanation regarding inappropriate conduct during the worker’s graduate school years, expressly stated that, as a result, the notice of final acceptance and the start date could be postponed, meaning that the hiring decision was still unsettled; and the employer thereafter formally notified the worker of “final rejection.”
In light of the above, the Commission held that the applicant, who claimed to be a worker, had merely failed in the recruitment process, and that there were no objective circumstances indicating that the employer had communicated a definitive intention to hire or a notice of final acceptance.
Since no conditional offer of employment had been formed, the measure at issue could not be regarded as a “dismissal” at all. Accordingly, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was found to be groundless.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is crucial whether the employer has expressly notified “final acceptance” or “confirmed hiring,” and whether the start date, remuneration, and other working conditions have been concretely agreed, as these are the core elements in determining whether a conditional offer of employment has been formed.
The Labor Relations Commission may decline to recognize a conditional offer of employment based solely on passing a medical examination, aptitude tests, and interviews, or receiving information about onboarding training. To prepare for potential disputes, workers should clearly confirm and retain, via email, text message, etc., whether hiring has been definitively confirmed.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, until using expressions such as “final acceptance” or “confirmed hiring,” it is advisable to clearly distinguish, in written communications, between stage-by-stage notifications of passing the selection process and any notice of a conditional offer or confirmed hiring.
In particular, where there are circumstances requiring additional verification—such as inappropriate conduct during graduate school, as in this case—it is important, when requesting an explanation, to clearly state in writing that “the notice of final acceptance and the start date may be postponed, and the hiring decision has not yet been finalized.” This is critical for preventing disputes.
In this type of case, both workers and companies must bear in mind that only where a conditional offer of employment has been formed will the matter fall within the scope of the Labor Relations Commission’s unfair dismissal remedy procedures, and that the wording used at each stage of the recruitment process can decisively influence the direction of any future dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The worker only passed up to 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 emailed the worker requesting an explanation in order to verify the facts regarding inappropriate conduct during his graduate school years, and stated that the notice of final acceptance and the start date could be postponed; (3) on 25 June 2025, the employer notified the worker of his final rejection. In light of these circumstances, the worker merely failed in the recruitment process, and there are no circumstances indicating that the employer notified the worker of final acceptance or a definitive hiring decision. Accordingly, it is determined that no conditional offer of employment was formed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) The worker only passed up to 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 emailed the worker requesting an explanation in order to verify the facts regarding inappropriate conduct during his graduate school years, and stated that the notice of final acceptance and the start date could be postponed; (3) on 25 June 2025, the employer notified the worker of his final rejection. In light of these circumstances, the worker merely failed in the recruitment process, and there are no circumstances indicating that the employer notified the worker of final acceptance or a definitive hiring decision. Accordingly, it is determined that no conditional offer of employment was formed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Employee Status · Personnel Order (Exceeding the Statutory Limit on Wage Reduction)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of conditional offer of employment (explanation requested regarding inappropriate conduct during graduate school), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article “‘Employee Status · Personnel Order (Exceeding the Statutory Limit on Wage Reduction)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to the existence of a conditional offer of employment (explanation requested regarding inappropriate conduct during graduate school) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Existence of Conditional Offer of Employment (Explanation Requested Regarding Inappropriate Conduct During Graduate School).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case name: Decision on unfair dismissal relating to “existence of a conditional offer of employment (explanation requested regarding inappropriate conduct during graduate school)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Unfair3908 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of outcome: (1) The worker only passed the medical examination stage of the recruitment process and was never notified by the employer of final acceptance; (2) the employer, on [date omitted in excerpt] 2025, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a job applicant who claimed to have been unfairly dismissed filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission dismissed the application on the ground that no conditional offer of employment (hiring reservation) had been formed in the first place.
The employer conducted the recruitment process and notified the applicant that he had passed up to and including the medical examination. Thereafter, in order to verify the facts concerning inappropriate conduct during the applicant’s graduate school years, the employer requested an explanation and informed him that the final acceptance and start date might be postponed. The employer subsequently notified the applicant of his final rejection.
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is whether, where an applicant who had passed the medical examination and was preparing to join the company is later notified of final rejection, a conditional offer of employment had already been formed such that the rejection notice constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: the worker had only passed up to the medical examination stage of the recruitment process and had never been notified by the employer of final acceptance; the employer, when requesting an explanation regarding inappropriate conduct during the worker’s graduate school years, expressly stated that, as a result, the notice of final acceptance and the start date could be postponed, meaning that the hiring decision was still unsettled; and the employer thereafter formally notified the worker of “final rejection.”
In light of the above, the Commission held that the applicant, who claimed to be a worker, had merely failed in the recruitment process, and that there were no objective circumstances indicating that the employer had communicated a definitive intention to hire or a notice of final acceptance.
Since no conditional offer of employment had been formed, the measure at issue could not be regarded as a “dismissal” at all. Accordingly, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was found to be groundless.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is crucial whether the employer has expressly notified “final acceptance” or “confirmed hiring,” and whether the start date, remuneration, and other working conditions have been concretely agreed, as these are the core elements in determining whether a conditional offer of employment has been formed.
The Labor Relations Commission may decline to recognize a conditional offer of employment based solely on passing a medical examination, aptitude tests, and interviews, or receiving information about onboarding training. To prepare for potential disputes, workers should clearly confirm and retain, via email, text message, etc., whether hiring has been definitively confirmed.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, until using expressions such as “final acceptance” or “confirmed hiring,” it is advisable to clearly distinguish, in written communications, between stage-by-stage notifications of passing the selection process and any notice of a conditional offer or confirmed hiring.
In particular, where there are circumstances requiring additional verification—such as inappropriate conduct during graduate school, as in this case—it is important, when requesting an explanation, to clearly state in writing that “the notice of final acceptance and the start date may be postponed, and the hiring decision has not yet been finalized.” This is critical for preventing disputes.
In this type of case, both workers and companies must bear in mind that only where a conditional offer of employment has been formed will the matter fall within the scope of the Labor Relations Commission’s unfair dismissal remedy procedures, and that the wording used at each stage of the recruitment process can decisively influence the direction of any future dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The worker only passed up to 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 emailed the worker requesting an explanation in order to verify the facts regarding inappropriate conduct during his graduate school years, and stated that the notice of final acceptance and the start date could be postponed; (3) on 25 June 2025, the employer notified the worker of his final rejection. In light of these circumstances, the worker merely failed in the recruitment process, and there are no circumstances indicating that the employer notified the worker of final acceptance or a definitive hiring decision. Accordingly, it is determined that no conditional offer of employment was formed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) The worker only passed up to 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 emailed the worker requesting an explanation in order to verify the facts regarding inappropriate conduct during his graduate school years, and stated that the notice of final acceptance and the start date could be postponed; (3) on 25 June 2025, the employer notified the worker of his final rejection. In light of these circumstances, the worker merely failed in the recruitment process, and there are no circumstances indicating that the employer notified the worker of final acceptance or a definitive hiring decision. Accordingly, it is determined that no conditional offer of employment was formed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Employee Status · Personnel Order (Exceeding the Statutory Limit on Wage Reduction)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of conditional offer of employment (explanation requested regarding inappropriate conduct during graduate school), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article “‘Employee Status · Personnel Order (Exceeding the Statutory Limit on Wage Reduction)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to the existence of a conditional offer of employment (explanation requested regarding inappropriate conduct during graduate school) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Existence of Conditional Offer of Employment (Explanation Requested Regarding Inappropriate Conduct During Graduate School).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
