Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Resignation Letter as Mutual Termination (Text Message Proposing a Four-Day Workweek)” (Unfair Dismissal 117)
- Date2026/01/16 04:14
- Read 240
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “resignation letter as mutual termination (text message proposing a four-day workweek).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3236 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (1) Upon being offered a change from three days per week to four days per week, the employee sent a message stating, “I don’t think I can continue working from today.” (2) On a day off, the employee visited the workplace and submitted a handwritten resignation letter and a handover and consent form. (3) The employee claimed that she had been coerced into writing the resignation letter but failed to prove this. (4) She further argued that submission of the resignation letter constituted a legal act subject to a suspensive condition, but at the hearing she stated that this had only been communicated orally and admitted she had no evidence…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee, after being offered a change from her existing three‑day workweek to a four‑day workweek, sent a message to the effect that she could no longer continue working. She then visited the workplace on her day off and submitted a handwritten resignation letter together with a handover and consent form. The employee subsequently filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that the employment contract had been terminated by mutual agreement through submission of the resignation letter.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employee, after being offered a change to a four‑day workweek, sent a message that appears to express an intention to resign and then submitted a handwritten resignation letter, this can be regarded as a genuine resignation and mutual termination, or whether in substance it constitutes unfair dismissal by the employer.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case took into account that, immediately upon being offered a four‑day workweek, the employee sent a message stating, “I don’t think I can continue working from today”; that she voluntarily visited the workplace on her day off and submitted a handwritten resignation letter and a handover and consent form; that there was no objective evidence supporting the employee’s claim that she had been coerced into writing the resignation letter; and that her argument that the resignation letter should be viewed as a legal act subject to a suspensive condition was based only on oral communication, and she herself stated at the hearing that she had no evidence to prove it.
The Commission held that there was no dismissal in this case and that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement through submission of the employee’s resignation letter.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that if they use expressions such as “I find it difficult to continue working” in text messages or messenger communications, this may be interpreted as a genuine intention to resign, especially when combined with the subsequent submission of a handwritten resignation letter. To substantiate a claim of coerced resignation, concrete evidence such as recordings, text messages, or third‑party statements at the time is required; mere assertions will generally not suffice for the Labor Relations Commission to find unfair dismissal. In addition, employees should keep in mind that notifications along the lines of “I will not come to work unless the conditions are acceptable” have been held in case law to broaden the scope for employers to regard this as an intention to resign or to terminate the employment contract.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to keep records—via text messages, emails, or minutes of meetings—of the course of discussions, the employee’s voluntariness, and the explanations provided when the employee mentions resignation or submits a resignation letter. To assert that the termination was a resignation or mutual termination rather than a dismissal, there must be objective indications that there was no coercion or pressure and that the employee made a voluntary choice. It is also helpful for dispute prevention to have the resignation letter clearly state the date, background, and details of the handover. Furthermore, when proposing changes to working conditions (for example, changing from three to four working days per week), employers should document the explanation process and the employee’s responses so that, in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute, they can support the position that the employee resigned voluntarily due to non‑acceptance of the proposed conditions.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account (1) that, when the employee was offered a change from three to four working days per week, she sent a message stating, “I don’t think I can continue working from today”; (2) that she visited the workplace on her day off and submitted a handwritten resignation letter and a handover and consent form; (3) that although she claimed she had been coerced into writing the resignation letter, she failed to prove this; and (4) that although she argued that submission of the resignation letter constituted a legal act subject to a suspensive condition, she admitted at the hearing that this had only been communicated orally and that there was no evidence, the Commission found that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement through submission of the employee’s resignation letter, and that no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account (1) that, when the employee was offered a change from three to four working days per week, she sent a message stating, “I don’t think I can continue working from today”; (2) that she visited the workplace on her day off and submitted a handwritten resignation letter and a handover and consent form; (3) that although she claimed she had been coerced into writing the resignation letter, she failed to prove this; and (4) that although she argued that submission of the resignation letter constituted a legal act subject to a suspensive condition, she admitted at the hearing that this had only been communicated orally and that there was no evidence, the Commission found that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement through submission of the employee’s resignation letter, and that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Procedural Defect (Redundancy Dismissal of Site Manager)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, resignation letter as mutual termination (text message proposing a four‑day workweek), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Embezzlement of Public Funds from Public Corporation Budget)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to resignation letter as mutual termination (text message proposing a four‑day workweek) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Resignation Letter as Mutual Termination (Text Message Proposing a Four‑Day Workweek).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “resignation letter as mutual termination (text message proposing a four-day workweek).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3236 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (1) Upon being offered a change from three days per week to four days per week, the employee sent a message stating, “I don’t think I can continue working from today.” (2) On a day off, the employee visited the workplace and submitted a handwritten resignation letter and a handover and consent form. (3) The employee claimed that she had been coerced into writing the resignation letter but failed to prove this. (4) She further argued that submission of the resignation letter constituted a legal act subject to a suspensive condition, but at the hearing she stated that this had only been communicated orally and admitted she had no evidence…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee, after being offered a change from her existing three‑day workweek to a four‑day workweek, sent a message to the effect that she could no longer continue working. She then visited the workplace on her day off and submitted a handwritten resignation letter together with a handover and consent form. The employee subsequently filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that the employment contract had been terminated by mutual agreement through submission of the resignation letter.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employee, after being offered a change to a four‑day workweek, sent a message that appears to express an intention to resign and then submitted a handwritten resignation letter, this can be regarded as a genuine resignation and mutual termination, or whether in substance it constitutes unfair dismissal by the employer.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case took into account that, immediately upon being offered a four‑day workweek, the employee sent a message stating, “I don’t think I can continue working from today”; that she voluntarily visited the workplace on her day off and submitted a handwritten resignation letter and a handover and consent form; that there was no objective evidence supporting the employee’s claim that she had been coerced into writing the resignation letter; and that her argument that the resignation letter should be viewed as a legal act subject to a suspensive condition was based only on oral communication, and she herself stated at the hearing that she had no evidence to prove it.
The Commission held that there was no dismissal in this case and that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement through submission of the employee’s resignation letter.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that if they use expressions such as “I find it difficult to continue working” in text messages or messenger communications, this may be interpreted as a genuine intention to resign, especially when combined with the subsequent submission of a handwritten resignation letter. To substantiate a claim of coerced resignation, concrete evidence such as recordings, text messages, or third‑party statements at the time is required; mere assertions will generally not suffice for the Labor Relations Commission to find unfair dismissal. In addition, employees should keep in mind that notifications along the lines of “I will not come to work unless the conditions are acceptable” have been held in case law to broaden the scope for employers to regard this as an intention to resign or to terminate the employment contract.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to keep records—via text messages, emails, or minutes of meetings—of the course of discussions, the employee’s voluntariness, and the explanations provided when the employee mentions resignation or submits a resignation letter. To assert that the termination was a resignation or mutual termination rather than a dismissal, there must be objective indications that there was no coercion or pressure and that the employee made a voluntary choice. It is also helpful for dispute prevention to have the resignation letter clearly state the date, background, and details of the handover. Furthermore, when proposing changes to working conditions (for example, changing from three to four working days per week), employers should document the explanation process and the employee’s responses so that, in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute, they can support the position that the employee resigned voluntarily due to non‑acceptance of the proposed conditions.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account (1) that, when the employee was offered a change from three to four working days per week, she sent a message stating, “I don’t think I can continue working from today”; (2) that she visited the workplace on her day off and submitted a handwritten resignation letter and a handover and consent form; (3) that although she claimed she had been coerced into writing the resignation letter, she failed to prove this; and (4) that although she argued that submission of the resignation letter constituted a legal act subject to a suspensive condition, she admitted at the hearing that this had only been communicated orally and that there was no evidence, the Commission found that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement through submission of the employee’s resignation letter, and that no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account (1) that, when the employee was offered a change from three to four working days per week, she sent a message stating, “I don’t think I can continue working from today”; (2) that she visited the workplace on her day off and submitted a handwritten resignation letter and a handover and consent form; (3) that although she claimed she had been coerced into writing the resignation letter, she failed to prove this; and (4) that although she argued that submission of the resignation letter constituted a legal act subject to a suspensive condition, she admitted at the hearing that this had only been communicated orally and that there was no evidence, the Commission found that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement through submission of the employee’s resignation letter, and that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Procedural Defect (Redundancy Dismissal of Site Manager)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, resignation letter as mutual termination (text message proposing a four‑day workweek), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Embezzlement of Public Funds from Public Corporation Budget)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to resignation letter as mutual termination (text message proposing a four‑day workweek) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Resignation Letter as Mutual Termination (Text Message Proposing a Four‑Day Workweek).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
