Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on the “Existence of Dismissal (Text Message from Outsourced Team Leader)” (Unfair Dismissal 166)
- Date2026/02/01 04:04
- Read 245
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “existence of dismissal (text message from outsourced team leader).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae9033 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 18, 2025 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee claimed that on July 23, 2025, Team Leader Yu ○‑woo notified him of his dismissal by saying, “It looks like you won’t be able to work at Lush,” but it was difficult to regard Team Leader Yu ○‑woo, who had only entered into an outsourcing contract with the company, as a person with personnel authority or as someone delegated such authority by the employer. After receiving the text message from Team Leader Yu ○‑woo, the employee, during a subsequent phone call, only inquired about confirmation of the termination of the employment relationship and settlement of fuel expenses, without asking about the reasons for dismissal or…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee received a text message from Team Leader Yu ○‑woo stating, “It looks like you won’t be able to work at Lush,” and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming that he had in effect been unfairly dismissed. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal by the employer, taking into account Team Leader Yu ○‑woo’s status, the content of the text messages and phone calls, and the employee’s subsequent response.
The Commission found that Team Leader Yu ○‑woo was merely a party to an outsourcing contract with the company, and that there had been no direct dismissal notice or confirmation procedure with the person holding personnel authority. On this basis, it denied the existence of a dismissal itself and did not proceed to a substantive determination of whether the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was:
“Whether a text message sent by a team leader in an outsourcing relationship and subsequent discussions on settlement alone are sufficient to recognize the existence of a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent.”
In other words, the core dispute was whether the cause of the termination of the employment relationship was a dismissal by the employer, or whether it arose from some other circumstance such as a mere misunderstanding or settlement discussions.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that Team Leader Yu ○‑woo was merely a party to an outsourcing contract with the company and was difficult to regard as having personnel authority or as being in a position delegated such authority by the employer. After receiving the text message, during the subsequent phone call, the employee did not protest the reasons for dismissal or its unfairness, as employees normally do when notified of dismissal, but only inquired about whether the employment relationship had ended and about settlement of fuel expenses. In addition, the employee neither directly confirmed the dismissal with the employer, who had personnel authority, nor raised any objection regarding dismissal with the employer even once during the approximately three months before filing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that there was no objective evidence or circumstance to support a finding that the employment relationship had been terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent.
Accordingly, it was difficult to find that any measure constituting a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act existed, and the Commission deemed it unnecessary to proceed to a determination on the legitimacy of the dismissal (i.e., whether it was unfair), and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
To assert unfair dismissal in a similar situation, it is important first to secure objective evidence regarding “who, in what capacity, and in what manner” notified you of the dismissal. You must preserve the process of dismissal notice and objection—through text messages or KakaoTalk messages, recordings, requests for calls or meetings with the person holding personnel authority, and written objections to the company—in order to prove the very existence of a dismissal.
In addition, if you hear remarks implying dismissal from persons whose personnel authority is unclear, such as team leaders of outsourcing companies or site managers, you should immediately verify the facts and raise objections with the person holding personnel authority or the head office HR department. If you neglect to do so, you should be aware that you run a high risk of failing to prove “whether a dismissal actually existed” at the Labor Relations Commission later on.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to train team leaders and managers in outsourcing relationships not to use expressions that may suggest dismissal to employees, and to clearly specify the scope of personnel authority in contracts and internal regulations. To reduce disputes over whether a dismissal has occurred, the actual termination of the employment relationship should always be notified in writing by the person with personnel authority, specifying the reasons and effective date of dismissal, and the procedure should be standardized.
Furthermore, in situations where it is ambiguous whether the cause of termination of the employment relationship is resignation/termination by agreement or dismissal, related text messages, records of interviews, and the circumstances of settlement should be systematically preserved to prevent unnecessary disputes over unfair dismissal in the future.
In this type of case, both employees and employers should bear in mind that, before the legitimacy of the dismissal is examined, the “existence of dismissal” itself can become the central issue. In particular, seeking advice from a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& at an early stage to organize the facts and establish a strategy for securing evidence can be of great help in preventing disputes.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee claimed that on July 23, 2025, he was notified of dismissal by Team Leader Yu ○‑woo, who said, “It looks like you won’t be able to work at Lush.” However, Team Leader Yu ○‑woo was merely a party to an outsourcing contract with the company, and it was difficult to regard him as a person with personnel authority or as someone delegated such authority by the employer. After receiving the text message from Team Leader Yu ○‑woo, during the subsequent phone call, the employee only inquired about confirmation of the termination of the employment relationship and settlement of fuel expenses, and did not raise objections in the usual manner of an employee who has received a dismissal notice, such as asserting the reasons for dismissal or its unfairness. The employee did not directly confirm with the employer holding personnel authority whether a dismissal notice had been given, and did not raise any objection regarding dismissal with the employer even once during the approximately three months before filing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal. In light of these circumstances, there was no objective evidence or circumstance to support a finding that the employment relationship had been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent. Therefore, there was no need to further examine the legitimacy of the dismissal on the premise that a dismissal existed.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employee claimed that on July 23, 2025, he was notified of dismissal by Team Leader Yu ○‑woo, who said, “It looks like you won’t be able to work at Lush.” However, Team Leader Yu ○‑woo was merely a party to an outsourcing contract with the company, and it was difficult to regard him as a person with personnel authority or as someone delegated such authority by the employer. After receiving the text message from Team Leader Yu ○‑woo, during the subsequent phone call, the employee only inquired about confirmation of the termination of the employment relationship and settlement of fuel expenses, and did not raise objections in the usual manner of an employee who has received a dismissal notice, such as asserting the reasons for dismissal or its unfairness. The employee did not directly confirm with the employer holding personnel authority whether a dismissal notice had been given, and did not raise any objection regarding dismissal with the employer even once during the approximately three months before filing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal. In light of these circumstances, there was no objective evidence or circumstance to support a finding that the employment relationship had been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent. Therefore, there was no need to further examine the legitimacy of the dismissal on the premise that a dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non‑Fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Original decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Phone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (text message from outsourced team leader), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Wages Paid up to Voluntary Resignation Date)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (text message from outsourced team leader) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Text Message from Outsourced Team Leader).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “existence of dismissal (text message from outsourced team leader).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae9033 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 18, 2025 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee claimed that on July 23, 2025, Team Leader Yu ○‑woo notified him of his dismissal by saying, “It looks like you won’t be able to work at Lush,” but it was difficult to regard Team Leader Yu ○‑woo, who had only entered into an outsourcing contract with the company, as a person with personnel authority or as someone delegated such authority by the employer. After receiving the text message from Team Leader Yu ○‑woo, the employee, during a subsequent phone call, only inquired about confirmation of the termination of the employment relationship and settlement of fuel expenses, without asking about the reasons for dismissal or…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee received a text message from Team Leader Yu ○‑woo stating, “It looks like you won’t be able to work at Lush,” and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming that he had in effect been unfairly dismissed. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal by the employer, taking into account Team Leader Yu ○‑woo’s status, the content of the text messages and phone calls, and the employee’s subsequent response.
The Commission found that Team Leader Yu ○‑woo was merely a party to an outsourcing contract with the company, and that there had been no direct dismissal notice or confirmation procedure with the person holding personnel authority. On this basis, it denied the existence of a dismissal itself and did not proceed to a substantive determination of whether the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was:
“Whether a text message sent by a team leader in an outsourcing relationship and subsequent discussions on settlement alone are sufficient to recognize the existence of a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent.”
In other words, the core dispute was whether the cause of the termination of the employment relationship was a dismissal by the employer, or whether it arose from some other circumstance such as a mere misunderstanding or settlement discussions.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that Team Leader Yu ○‑woo was merely a party to an outsourcing contract with the company and was difficult to regard as having personnel authority or as being in a position delegated such authority by the employer. After receiving the text message, during the subsequent phone call, the employee did not protest the reasons for dismissal or its unfairness, as employees normally do when notified of dismissal, but only inquired about whether the employment relationship had ended and about settlement of fuel expenses. In addition, the employee neither directly confirmed the dismissal with the employer, who had personnel authority, nor raised any objection regarding dismissal with the employer even once during the approximately three months before filing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that there was no objective evidence or circumstance to support a finding that the employment relationship had been terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent.
Accordingly, it was difficult to find that any measure constituting a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act existed, and the Commission deemed it unnecessary to proceed to a determination on the legitimacy of the dismissal (i.e., whether it was unfair), and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
To assert unfair dismissal in a similar situation, it is important first to secure objective evidence regarding “who, in what capacity, and in what manner” notified you of the dismissal. You must preserve the process of dismissal notice and objection—through text messages or KakaoTalk messages, recordings, requests for calls or meetings with the person holding personnel authority, and written objections to the company—in order to prove the very existence of a dismissal.
In addition, if you hear remarks implying dismissal from persons whose personnel authority is unclear, such as team leaders of outsourcing companies or site managers, you should immediately verify the facts and raise objections with the person holding personnel authority or the head office HR department. If you neglect to do so, you should be aware that you run a high risk of failing to prove “whether a dismissal actually existed” at the Labor Relations Commission later on.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to train team leaders and managers in outsourcing relationships not to use expressions that may suggest dismissal to employees, and to clearly specify the scope of personnel authority in contracts and internal regulations. To reduce disputes over whether a dismissal has occurred, the actual termination of the employment relationship should always be notified in writing by the person with personnel authority, specifying the reasons and effective date of dismissal, and the procedure should be standardized.
Furthermore, in situations where it is ambiguous whether the cause of termination of the employment relationship is resignation/termination by agreement or dismissal, related text messages, records of interviews, and the circumstances of settlement should be systematically preserved to prevent unnecessary disputes over unfair dismissal in the future.
In this type of case, both employees and employers should bear in mind that, before the legitimacy of the dismissal is examined, the “existence of dismissal” itself can become the central issue. In particular, seeking advice from a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& at an early stage to organize the facts and establish a strategy for securing evidence can be of great help in preventing disputes.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee claimed that on July 23, 2025, he was notified of dismissal by Team Leader Yu ○‑woo, who said, “It looks like you won’t be able to work at Lush.” However, Team Leader Yu ○‑woo was merely a party to an outsourcing contract with the company, and it was difficult to regard him as a person with personnel authority or as someone delegated such authority by the employer. After receiving the text message from Team Leader Yu ○‑woo, during the subsequent phone call, the employee only inquired about confirmation of the termination of the employment relationship and settlement of fuel expenses, and did not raise objections in the usual manner of an employee who has received a dismissal notice, such as asserting the reasons for dismissal or its unfairness. The employee did not directly confirm with the employer holding personnel authority whether a dismissal notice had been given, and did not raise any objection regarding dismissal with the employer even once during the approximately three months before filing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal. In light of these circumstances, there was no objective evidence or circumstance to support a finding that the employment relationship had been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent. Therefore, there was no need to further examine the legitimacy of the dismissal on the premise that a dismissal existed.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employee claimed that on July 23, 2025, he was notified of dismissal by Team Leader Yu ○‑woo, who said, “It looks like you won’t be able to work at Lush.” However, Team Leader Yu ○‑woo was merely a party to an outsourcing contract with the company, and it was difficult to regard him as a person with personnel authority or as someone delegated such authority by the employer. After receiving the text message from Team Leader Yu ○‑woo, during the subsequent phone call, the employee only inquired about confirmation of the termination of the employment relationship and settlement of fuel expenses, and did not raise objections in the usual manner of an employee who has received a dismissal notice, such as asserting the reasons for dismissal or its unfairness. The employee did not directly confirm with the employer holding personnel authority whether a dismissal notice had been given, and did not raise any objection regarding dismissal with the employer even once during the approximately three months before filing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal. In light of these circumstances, there was no objective evidence or circumstance to support a finding that the employment relationship had been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent. Therefore, there was no need to further examine the legitimacy of the dismissal on the premise that a dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non‑Fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Original decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Phone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (text message from outsourced team leader), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Wages Paid up to Voluntary Resignation Date)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (text message from outsourced team leader) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Text Message from Outsourced Team Leader).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
