Corporate trends / Performance record
Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Request for Acceptance Text Message) and Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 137)
- Date2026/01/22 00:01
- Read 245
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the issue of “non-formation of hiring decision (request for acceptance text message)” was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1402 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.02 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issue: The employee claimed that a hiring decision (conditional offer) had been made between the employee and the employer; however, (i) there was no fact that the employer explicitly notified the employee of acceptance or definitively notified the wage amount and starting date, and (ii) the employee instead proposed his/her own annual salary, position, and starting date and stated, “If you send me an acceptance text message, I will start work.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the central issue in the Labor Relations Commission proceedings was whether the hiring decision asserted by the employee had in fact been formed. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that he/she had received a hiring decision from the employer. The Central Labor Relations Commission, however, strictly examined the issue starting from whether a hiring decision itself had been formed. Labor Law Firm Law& considers it important, in this type of dispute, to clearly distinguish between expressions of intent at the recruitment stage and the point in time at which an employment contract is actually formed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “in a situation where the employer has not given an explicit notice of acceptance or a definitive notice of wage and starting date, a job applicant can nonetheless claim unfair dismissal on the premise that a hiring decision was made.” In other words, the question was whether the employer’s intention to hire could be regarded as having been clearly expressed externally based solely on certain circumstances such as text messages.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that there was no fact that the employer explicitly notified the employee of acceptance or definitively notified the wage amount and starting date; that, instead, the employee proposed his/her own annual salary, position, and starting date and requested, “If you send me an acceptance text message, I will start work”; and that, after receiving no response, the employee again inquired on his/her own about whether he/she should come to work.
Taking into account that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties on the annual salary and starting date, which are essential working conditions under the employment contract, and that there was no confirmation of any external and objective expression of intent to hire, such as a notice of hiring decision or a notice of final acceptance,
the panel held that, because the underlying hiring decision itself had not been formed, the dismissal measure in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, one should not hastily conclude that an employment contract has been formed based solely on a job posting, interviews, or positive remarks made orally. It is essential to secure evidence showing that the employer definitively notified key working conditions such as annual salary, position, and starting date, and that there was an explicit expression such as “final acceptance” or an equivalent phrase via email, text message, or messenger. Before winding up a current job or changing life plans on the premise of a hiring decision, employees should clearly confirm in writing or by text message the specific hiring conditions and starting date.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, expressions used during the recruitment process should be clearly distinguished by stage—such as “under review” or “subject to further discussion”—so that they are not mistaken for a hiring decision. When notifying acceptance, employers should provide written or electronic notice specifying key working conditions such as annual salary, position, and starting date. Prior to that stage, it is advisable to avoid ambiguous expressions that could be interpreted as a confirmed hire, in order to prevent disputes. In addition, if the employer decides not to proceed with hiring, it should promptly and clearly notify the applicant of non-acceptance or hiring on hold, thereby reducing misunderstandings related to unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal and the risk of disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee claimed that a hiring decision had been made between the employee and the employer. However, (i) there was no fact that the employer explicitly notified the employee of acceptance or definitively notified the wage amount and starting date; (ii) the employee sent the employer a text message proposing his/her own annual salary, position, and starting date and stating, “If you send me an acceptance text message, I will start work”; (iii) when the employee did not receive a response from the employer, the employee inquired how he/she should proceed regarding whether to come to work; (iv) there was no meeting of the minds between the parties on the annual salary and starting date, which are the most essential working conditions under the employment contract; and (v) there were no other circumstances from which one could find any external and objective expression of intent to hire, such as a notice of hiring decision or a notice of final acceptance. In light of all of the above, it was determined that, based solely on the employee’s assertions and the materials submitted, it could not be viewed that the employer’s intention to hire had been clearly expressed to the employee externally and objectively through a notice of hiring decision or a notice of final acceptance, and therefore no hiring decision had been formed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employee claimed that a hiring decision had been made between the employee and the employer. However, (i) there was no fact that the employer explicitly notified the employee of acceptance or definitively notified the wage amount and starting date; (ii) the employee sent the employer a text message proposing his/her own annual salary, position, and starting date and stating, “If you send me an acceptance text message, I will start work”; (iii) when the employee did not receive a response from the employer, the employee inquired how he/she should proceed regarding whether to come to work; (iv) there was no meeting of the minds between the parties on the annual salary and starting date, which are the most essential working conditions under the employment contract; and (v) there were no other circumstances from which one could find any external and objective expression of intent to hire, such as a notice of hiring decision or a notice of final acceptance. In light of all of the above, it was determined that, based solely on the employee’s assertions and the materials submitted, it could not be viewed that the employer’s intention to hire had been clearly expressed to the employee externally and objectively through a notice of hiring decision or a notice of final acceptance, and therefore no hiring decision had been formed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made During Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expectation of Conversion to Indefinite-Term Contract (Qualitative Evaluation by Personnel Committee)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-formation of hiring decision (request for acceptance 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Expectation of Conversion to Indefinite-Term Contract (Qualitative Evaluation by Personnel Committee) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to non-formation of hiring decision (request for acceptance text message) in the “List of Decisions Related to Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Request for Acceptance Text Message).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the issue of “non-formation of hiring decision (request for acceptance text message)” was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1402 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.02 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issue: The employee claimed that a hiring decision (conditional offer) had been made between the employee and the employer; however, (i) there was no fact that the employer explicitly notified the employee of acceptance or definitively notified the wage amount and starting date, and (ii) the employee instead proposed his/her own annual salary, position, and starting date and stated, “If you send me an acceptance text message, I will start work.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the central issue in the Labor Relations Commission proceedings was whether the hiring decision asserted by the employee had in fact been formed. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that he/she had received a hiring decision from the employer. The Central Labor Relations Commission, however, strictly examined the issue starting from whether a hiring decision itself had been formed. Labor Law Firm Law& considers it important, in this type of dispute, to clearly distinguish between expressions of intent at the recruitment stage and the point in time at which an employment contract is actually formed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “in a situation where the employer has not given an explicit notice of acceptance or a definitive notice of wage and starting date, a job applicant can nonetheless claim unfair dismissal on the premise that a hiring decision was made.” In other words, the question was whether the employer’s intention to hire could be regarded as having been clearly expressed externally based solely on certain circumstances such as text messages.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that there was no fact that the employer explicitly notified the employee of acceptance or definitively notified the wage amount and starting date; that, instead, the employee proposed his/her own annual salary, position, and starting date and requested, “If you send me an acceptance text message, I will start work”; and that, after receiving no response, the employee again inquired on his/her own about whether he/she should come to work.
Taking into account that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties on the annual salary and starting date, which are essential working conditions under the employment contract, and that there was no confirmation of any external and objective expression of intent to hire, such as a notice of hiring decision or a notice of final acceptance,
the panel held that, because the underlying hiring decision itself had not been formed, the dismissal measure in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, one should not hastily conclude that an employment contract has been formed based solely on a job posting, interviews, or positive remarks made orally. It is essential to secure evidence showing that the employer definitively notified key working conditions such as annual salary, position, and starting date, and that there was an explicit expression such as “final acceptance” or an equivalent phrase via email, text message, or messenger. Before winding up a current job or changing life plans on the premise of a hiring decision, employees should clearly confirm in writing or by text message the specific hiring conditions and starting date.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, expressions used during the recruitment process should be clearly distinguished by stage—such as “under review” or “subject to further discussion”—so that they are not mistaken for a hiring decision. When notifying acceptance, employers should provide written or electronic notice specifying key working conditions such as annual salary, position, and starting date. Prior to that stage, it is advisable to avoid ambiguous expressions that could be interpreted as a confirmed hire, in order to prevent disputes. In addition, if the employer decides not to proceed with hiring, it should promptly and clearly notify the applicant of non-acceptance or hiring on hold, thereby reducing misunderstandings related to unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal and the risk of disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee claimed that a hiring decision had been made between the employee and the employer. However, (i) there was no fact that the employer explicitly notified the employee of acceptance or definitively notified the wage amount and starting date; (ii) the employee sent the employer a text message proposing his/her own annual salary, position, and starting date and stating, “If you send me an acceptance text message, I will start work”; (iii) when the employee did not receive a response from the employer, the employee inquired how he/she should proceed regarding whether to come to work; (iv) there was no meeting of the minds between the parties on the annual salary and starting date, which are the most essential working conditions under the employment contract; and (v) there were no other circumstances from which one could find any external and objective expression of intent to hire, such as a notice of hiring decision or a notice of final acceptance. In light of all of the above, it was determined that, based solely on the employee’s assertions and the materials submitted, it could not be viewed that the employer’s intention to hire had been clearly expressed to the employee externally and objectively through a notice of hiring decision or a notice of final acceptance, and therefore no hiring decision had been formed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employee claimed that a hiring decision had been made between the employee and the employer. However, (i) there was no fact that the employer explicitly notified the employee of acceptance or definitively notified the wage amount and starting date; (ii) the employee sent the employer a text message proposing his/her own annual salary, position, and starting date and stating, “If you send me an acceptance text message, I will start work”; (iii) when the employee did not receive a response from the employer, the employee inquired how he/she should proceed regarding whether to come to work; (iv) there was no meeting of the minds between the parties on the annual salary and starting date, which are the most essential working conditions under the employment contract; and (v) there were no other circumstances from which one could find any external and objective expression of intent to hire, such as a notice of hiring decision or a notice of final acceptance. In light of all of the above, it was determined that, based solely on the employee’s assertions and the materials submitted, it could not be viewed that the employer’s intention to hire had been clearly expressed to the employee externally and objectively through a notice of hiring decision or a notice of final acceptance, and therefore no hiring decision had been formed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made During Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expectation of Conversion to Indefinite-Term Contract (Qualitative Evaluation by Personnel Committee)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-formation of hiring decision (request for acceptance 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Expectation of Conversion to Indefinite-Term Contract (Qualitative Evaluation by Personnel Committee) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to non-formation of hiring decision (request for acceptance text message) in the “List of Decisions Related to Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Request for Acceptance Text Message).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
