Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Employer Status (Directly Managed vs. Non‑Directly Managed Site Security)” (Unfair Dismissal 145)
- Date2026/01/25 04:04
- Read 231
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “employer status (directly managed vs. non‑directly managed site security).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission
2025BuHae1326 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.26 · Case result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the respondent has standing as the employer:
① The employment contract was merely formal, and the contents of the last employment contract concluded with the nominal company did not correspond to the actual employment relationship, making it difficult to regard that company as the real employer. The worker merely moved from site to site in accordance with the instructions of the site manager, who was acting under the employer’s direction, and it was difficult to distinguish between the employer’s directly managed and non‑directly managed sites.
② The site manager’s business card described him as a team leader of the employer.
③ The worker, after …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a security guard employed by a security company worked alternatingly at directly managed and non‑directly managed sites. After he was no longer assigned to any site, he filed an application with the Central Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission focused not on the company that formally signed the last employment contract, but on which entity in reality exercised direction and supervision, paid wages, and managed attendance, and on whether a dismissal existed and, if so, whether it was justified.
The key issues in this case are whether “a security guard assigned to a non‑directly managed site, who has formally concluded an employment contract with another company, may nonetheless seek a remedy for unfair dismissal against the actual employer, and whether the discontinuation of site assignment constitutes a dismissal.”
The panel in this case found that the worker continued to work under the direction and supervision of a site manager who was acting on the employer’s instructions, in circumstances where it was difficult to distinguish between directly managed and non‑directly managed sites; that even after the last employment contract was concluded, the worker reported to a non‑directly managed site as belonging to the employer, received wages from the employer, and communicated with the company through its attendance‑management program; and that the security fees for the non‑directly managed site were submitted to the employer with the site manager’s signature and then settled by the employer.
On this basis, the Commission recognized the respondent’s standing as the employer, holding that, regardless of the name on the written employment contract, the company that actually exercised direction and supervision and settled wages was the real (substantive) employer.
Considering that the worker had repeatedly concluded monthly employment contracts while being continuously assigned to both directly managed and non‑directly managed sites, that he worked under the employer’s overall direction, supervision, and attendance management until the end of January 2025, and that thereafter the employer refused to accept his labor, the Commission held that there was a dismissal, rather than a mere expiration of contract or termination of daily employment.
Furthermore, the employer’s failure, when excluding the worker from work, to notify him in writing of the reason and timing of dismissal was deemed a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, which requires written notice of dismissal. Taking into account that there was no objectively reasonable cause for dismissal nor any socially acceptable justification, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether “a security guard assigned to a non‑directly managed site, who has formally concluded an employment contract with another company, may assert unfair dismissal against the company that actually exercised direction and supervision, and whether the employer’s refusal to assign the worker to any site and refusal to accept his labor constitutes a dismissal and, if so, whether such dismissal is justified.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
First, the Commission found that the written employment contract was merely formal, and that in reality the site manager, acting under the employer’s instructions, assigned and managed the worker without distinguishing between directly managed and non‑directly managed sites. Second, the site manager’s business card listed him as a team leader of the employer, indicating that he functioned as a manager within the employer’s organization. Third, even after concluding an employment contract with the employer, the worker reported to a non‑directly managed site, received wages, and communicated directly with the company through its attendance‑management program. Fourth, the security fees for the non‑directly managed site were submitted to the employer with the site manager’s signature and then settled by the employer. Based on these facts, the Commission recognized the employer’s standing as the substantive employer as of the time of dismissal, in accordance with the principle that employment relationships must be determined based on substance rather than form.
In addition, considering that the worker had been continuously assigned to both directly managed and non‑directly managed sites and the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of monthly employment contracts, the Commission found it difficult to regard him as a mere daily worker. It held that a de facto dismissal existed, given that the worker worked under the employer’s overall direction, supervision, and attendance management until the end of January 2025, and that thereafter the employer refused to accept his labor.
Moreover, the Commission noted that, in the course of dismissal, the employer failed to provide written notice of the reason and timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and failed to prove any objective and reasonable grounds for dismissal or socially acceptable justification. Taken together, the Commission held that the dismissal lacked both procedural and substantive legitimacy and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even if you are assigned to a non‑directly managed site and have signed an employment contract under another company’s name, you should be aware that you can still contest who the real employer is, focusing on which company actually exercised direction and supervision, who paid your wages, and who managed your attendance. If your employer refuses to accept your labor by simply ceasing to assign you to any site or preventing you from reporting to work without any notice of dismissal, such conduct may be recognized as a de facto dismissal, and you should actively consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
When you receive notice of dismissal, you must check whether the reason and timing of dismissal are stated in writing. It is also very important, in anticipation of possible disputes, to keep records that show your relationship with the actual employer, such as text messages or messenger logs, attendance‑management records, pay slips, and documents relating to the settlement of security fees.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
In industries such as security and outsourcing, where directly managed and non‑directly managed sites coexist, if the name on the employment contract does not match the actual structure of direction and supervision, the company may be recognized as the substantive employer. Accordingly, employers should align their site‑management systems and contract structures, and clearly document them. When you no longer intend to use a worker, you should not simply stop assigning the worker or block the worker from reporting to work. Instead, you must carefully consider whether a dismissal is involved, and if so, provide written notice of the reason and timing of dismissal in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Furthermore, even when using daily or short‑term contract formats, if the worker is in fact continuously employed, the termination may be evaluated as a dismissal disguised as the expiration of a fixed‑term or daily contract. Employers should not assume that the form of the contract alone secures the legitimacy of terminating the employment relationship, but should instead manage personnel and labor relations in a way that ensures justifiable grounds and lawful procedures.
This Central Labor Relations Commission decision is a useful example of how the substance of the employment relationship, the existence of a dismissal, and the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal are assessed in unfair dismissal cases and Labor Relations Commission remedy procedures. Workplaces that anticipate similar disputes should conduct a prior review together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Employer’s Standing as a Party
① The employment contract was merely formal, and the contents of the last employment contract concluded with the nominal company did not correspond to the actual employment relationship, making it difficult to regard that company as the real employer. The worker merely moved from site to site in accordance with the instructions of the site manager, who was acting under the employer’s direction, and it was difficult to distinguish between the employer’s directly managed and non‑directly managed sites.
② The site manager’s business card described him as a team leader of the employer.
③ Even after concluding an employment contract with the employer, the worker reported to a non‑directly managed site, received wages, and communicated through the attendance‑management program.
④ The security fees for the non‑directly managed site appear to have been submitted to the employer with the site manager’s signature and then settled by the employer.
In light of the above, and in accordance with the principle that employment relationships must be determined based on substance rather than form, the employer’s standing as a party vis‑à‑vis the worker is recognized as of the time of dismissal.
B. Existence and Justification of Dismissal
① Considering the continuous assignment to directly managed and non‑directly managed sites and the circumstances of concluding monthly employment contracts, it is difficult to regard the worker as a daily worker.
② Given that the worker worked under the employer’s overall direction, supervision, and attendance management until the end of January 2025, and that thereafter the employer refused to accept his labor, it can be held that a dismissal existed.
③ Taking into account that the employer, in dismissing the worker, did not provide written notice of the reason and timing of dismissal, the dismissal is unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Employer’s Standing as a Party
① The employment contract was merely formal, and the contents of the last employment contract concluded with the nominal company did not correspond to the actual employment relationship, making it difficult to regard that company as the real employer. The worker merely moved from site to site in accordance with the instructions of the site manager, who was acting under the employer’s direction, and it was difficult to distinguish between the employer’s directly managed and non‑directly managed sites.
② The site manager’s business card described him as a team leader of the employer.
③ Even after concluding an employment contract with the employer, the worker reported to a non‑directly managed site, received wages, and communicated through the attendance‑management program.
④ The security fees for the non‑directly managed site appear to have been submitted to the employer with the site manager’s signature and then settled by the employer.
In light of the above, and in accordance with the principle that employment relationships must be determined based on substance rather than form, the employer’s standing as a party vis‑à‑vis the worker is recognized as of the time of dismissal.
B. Existence and Justification of Dismissal
① Considering the continuous assignment to directly managed and non‑directly managed sites and the circumstances of concluding monthly employment contracts, it is difficult to regard the worker as a daily worker.
② Given that the worker worked under the employer’s overall direction, supervision, and attendance management until the end of January 2025, and that thereafter the employer refused to accept his labor, it can be held that a dismissal existed.
③ Taking into account that the employer, in dismissing the worker, did not provide written notice of the reason and timing of dismissal, the dismissal is unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employer status (directly managed vs. non‑directly managed site security), 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Monetary Demands from a Co‑Worker)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employer status (directly managed vs. non‑directly managed site security) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Employer Status (Directly Managed vs. Non‑Directly Managed Site Security).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “employer status (directly managed vs. non‑directly managed site security).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission
2025BuHae1326 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.26 · Case result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the respondent has standing as the employer:
① The employment contract was merely formal, and the contents of the last employment contract concluded with the nominal company did not correspond to the actual employment relationship, making it difficult to regard that company as the real employer. The worker merely moved from site to site in accordance with the instructions of the site manager, who was acting under the employer’s direction, and it was difficult to distinguish between the employer’s directly managed and non‑directly managed sites.
② The site manager’s business card described him as a team leader of the employer.
③ The worker, after …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a security guard employed by a security company worked alternatingly at directly managed and non‑directly managed sites. After he was no longer assigned to any site, he filed an application with the Central Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission focused not on the company that formally signed the last employment contract, but on which entity in reality exercised direction and supervision, paid wages, and managed attendance, and on whether a dismissal existed and, if so, whether it was justified.
The key issues in this case are whether “a security guard assigned to a non‑directly managed site, who has formally concluded an employment contract with another company, may nonetheless seek a remedy for unfair dismissal against the actual employer, and whether the discontinuation of site assignment constitutes a dismissal.”
The panel in this case found that the worker continued to work under the direction and supervision of a site manager who was acting on the employer’s instructions, in circumstances where it was difficult to distinguish between directly managed and non‑directly managed sites; that even after the last employment contract was concluded, the worker reported to a non‑directly managed site as belonging to the employer, received wages from the employer, and communicated with the company through its attendance‑management program; and that the security fees for the non‑directly managed site were submitted to the employer with the site manager’s signature and then settled by the employer.
On this basis, the Commission recognized the respondent’s standing as the employer, holding that, regardless of the name on the written employment contract, the company that actually exercised direction and supervision and settled wages was the real (substantive) employer.
Considering that the worker had repeatedly concluded monthly employment contracts while being continuously assigned to both directly managed and non‑directly managed sites, that he worked under the employer’s overall direction, supervision, and attendance management until the end of January 2025, and that thereafter the employer refused to accept his labor, the Commission held that there was a dismissal, rather than a mere expiration of contract or termination of daily employment.
Furthermore, the employer’s failure, when excluding the worker from work, to notify him in writing of the reason and timing of dismissal was deemed a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, which requires written notice of dismissal. Taking into account that there was no objectively reasonable cause for dismissal nor any socially acceptable justification, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether “a security guard assigned to a non‑directly managed site, who has formally concluded an employment contract with another company, may assert unfair dismissal against the company that actually exercised direction and supervision, and whether the employer’s refusal to assign the worker to any site and refusal to accept his labor constitutes a dismissal and, if so, whether such dismissal is justified.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
First, the Commission found that the written employment contract was merely formal, and that in reality the site manager, acting under the employer’s instructions, assigned and managed the worker without distinguishing between directly managed and non‑directly managed sites. Second, the site manager’s business card listed him as a team leader of the employer, indicating that he functioned as a manager within the employer’s organization. Third, even after concluding an employment contract with the employer, the worker reported to a non‑directly managed site, received wages, and communicated directly with the company through its attendance‑management program. Fourth, the security fees for the non‑directly managed site were submitted to the employer with the site manager’s signature and then settled by the employer. Based on these facts, the Commission recognized the employer’s standing as the substantive employer as of the time of dismissal, in accordance with the principle that employment relationships must be determined based on substance rather than form.
In addition, considering that the worker had been continuously assigned to both directly managed and non‑directly managed sites and the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of monthly employment contracts, the Commission found it difficult to regard him as a mere daily worker. It held that a de facto dismissal existed, given that the worker worked under the employer’s overall direction, supervision, and attendance management until the end of January 2025, and that thereafter the employer refused to accept his labor.
Moreover, the Commission noted that, in the course of dismissal, the employer failed to provide written notice of the reason and timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and failed to prove any objective and reasonable grounds for dismissal or socially acceptable justification. Taken together, the Commission held that the dismissal lacked both procedural and substantive legitimacy and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even if you are assigned to a non‑directly managed site and have signed an employment contract under another company’s name, you should be aware that you can still contest who the real employer is, focusing on which company actually exercised direction and supervision, who paid your wages, and who managed your attendance. If your employer refuses to accept your labor by simply ceasing to assign you to any site or preventing you from reporting to work without any notice of dismissal, such conduct may be recognized as a de facto dismissal, and you should actively consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
When you receive notice of dismissal, you must check whether the reason and timing of dismissal are stated in writing. It is also very important, in anticipation of possible disputes, to keep records that show your relationship with the actual employer, such as text messages or messenger logs, attendance‑management records, pay slips, and documents relating to the settlement of security fees.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
In industries such as security and outsourcing, where directly managed and non‑directly managed sites coexist, if the name on the employment contract does not match the actual structure of direction and supervision, the company may be recognized as the substantive employer. Accordingly, employers should align their site‑management systems and contract structures, and clearly document them. When you no longer intend to use a worker, you should not simply stop assigning the worker or block the worker from reporting to work. Instead, you must carefully consider whether a dismissal is involved, and if so, provide written notice of the reason and timing of dismissal in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Furthermore, even when using daily or short‑term contract formats, if the worker is in fact continuously employed, the termination may be evaluated as a dismissal disguised as the expiration of a fixed‑term or daily contract. Employers should not assume that the form of the contract alone secures the legitimacy of terminating the employment relationship, but should instead manage personnel and labor relations in a way that ensures justifiable grounds and lawful procedures.
This Central Labor Relations Commission decision is a useful example of how the substance of the employment relationship, the existence of a dismissal, and the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal are assessed in unfair dismissal cases and Labor Relations Commission remedy procedures. Workplaces that anticipate similar disputes should conduct a prior review together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Employer’s Standing as a Party
① The employment contract was merely formal, and the contents of the last employment contract concluded with the nominal company did not correspond to the actual employment relationship, making it difficult to regard that company as the real employer. The worker merely moved from site to site in accordance with the instructions of the site manager, who was acting under the employer’s direction, and it was difficult to distinguish between the employer’s directly managed and non‑directly managed sites.
② The site manager’s business card described him as a team leader of the employer.
③ Even after concluding an employment contract with the employer, the worker reported to a non‑directly managed site, received wages, and communicated through the attendance‑management program.
④ The security fees for the non‑directly managed site appear to have been submitted to the employer with the site manager’s signature and then settled by the employer.
In light of the above, and in accordance with the principle that employment relationships must be determined based on substance rather than form, the employer’s standing as a party vis‑à‑vis the worker is recognized as of the time of dismissal.
B. Existence and Justification of Dismissal
① Considering the continuous assignment to directly managed and non‑directly managed sites and the circumstances of concluding monthly employment contracts, it is difficult to regard the worker as a daily worker.
② Given that the worker worked under the employer’s overall direction, supervision, and attendance management until the end of January 2025, and that thereafter the employer refused to accept his labor, it can be held that a dismissal existed.
③ Taking into account that the employer, in dismissing the worker, did not provide written notice of the reason and timing of dismissal, the dismissal is unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Employer’s Standing as a Party
① The employment contract was merely formal, and the contents of the last employment contract concluded with the nominal company did not correspond to the actual employment relationship, making it difficult to regard that company as the real employer. The worker merely moved from site to site in accordance with the instructions of the site manager, who was acting under the employer’s direction, and it was difficult to distinguish between the employer’s directly managed and non‑directly managed sites.
② The site manager’s business card described him as a team leader of the employer.
③ Even after concluding an employment contract with the employer, the worker reported to a non‑directly managed site, received wages, and communicated through the attendance‑management program.
④ The security fees for the non‑directly managed site appear to have been submitted to the employer with the site manager’s signature and then settled by the employer.
In light of the above, and in accordance with the principle that employment relationships must be determined based on substance rather than form, the employer’s standing as a party vis‑à‑vis the worker is recognized as of the time of dismissal.
B. Existence and Justification of Dismissal
① Considering the continuous assignment to directly managed and non‑directly managed sites and the circumstances of concluding monthly employment contracts, it is difficult to regard the worker as a daily worker.
② Given that the worker worked under the employer’s overall direction, supervision, and attendance management until the end of January 2025, and that thereafter the employer refused to accept his labor, it can be held that a dismissal existed.
③ Taking into account that the employer, in dismissing the worker, did not provide written notice of the reason and timing of dismissal, the dismissal is unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employer status (directly managed vs. non‑directly managed site security), 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Monetary Demands from a Co‑Worker)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employer status (directly managed vs. non‑directly managed site security) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Employer Status (Directly Managed vs. Non‑Directly Managed Site Security).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
