Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on the Effectiveness of a Resignation Letter (Statement on Salary Reduction) (Unfair Dismissal 267)
- Date2026/03/08 04:08
- Read 212
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “effectiveness of a resignation letter (statement on salary reduction).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9530 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.14 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee claimed to have been unfairly dismissed by the employer on 4 October 2025. However, the employee submitted a resignation letter to the employer on 4 October 2025, there was no basis to find that the employer stated that all employees’ salaries would be reduced if the employee did not resign, and even assuming such a statement had been made, it was difficult to view the employee as having been deprived of the ability to make an independent decision. Accordingly, the resignation letter was held to be effective, and so on.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed unfair dismissal, asserting that they had no choice but to submit a resignation letter due to pressure from the employer, and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the circumstances surrounding the submission of the resignation letter and the employer’s statements at the time, and determined whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal or a voluntary resignation.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee has submitted a resignation letter and alleges that the employer made a statement to the effect that ‘if you do not resign, I will cut the salaries of all employees,’ whether such resignation constitutes a genuinely voluntary resignation, or in substance amounts to an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that there was insufficient objective evidence to conclude that the employer actually stated to the employee that all employees’ salaries would be reduced if the employee did not resign; that even if such a statement had been made, it was difficult to view the employee as having been completely deprived of the ability to make a free and independent decision; and that it was clear the employee personally drafted and submitted the resignation letter.
Accordingly, the panel held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and that the employment relationship ended not by an unfair dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent, but by the employee’s submission of a resignation letter.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to assert unfair dismissal on the basis of a “forced resignation,” mere feelings of pressure or abstract anxiety are not sufficient. Objective evidence such as recordings, text messages, messenger logs, and statements from colleagues that can substantiate specific circumstances of threats or coercion should be secured. In addition, it is important to clearly express an intention to withdraw the resignation immediately before or right after submitting the resignation letter, and to keep a record of the employer’s response, as this can serve as crucial evidence in any subsequent dispute.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is possible to recommend resignation in the course of restructuring or attempting to avoid collective redundancies. However, excessive pressure using wage reductions or other disadvantages as leverage should be avoided, as there is a risk that it may later be deemed a “dismissal disguised as voluntary resignation.” Where resignation is recommended or discussed, the process should, as far as possible, be documented in writing or by email; expressions that may be misunderstood as threats or coercion should be avoided; and procedures should be designed so that the employee’s voluntary choice is clearly reflected.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee claimed to have been unfairly dismissed by the employer on 4 October 2025. However, the employee submitted a resignation letter to the employer on 4 October 2025, there is no basis to find that the employer stated that all employees’ salaries would be reduced if the employee did not resign, and even assuming such a statement had been made, it is difficult to view the employee as having been deprived of the ability to make an independent decision. The resignation letter is therefore valid. Accordingly, it cannot be found that a dismissal existed.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee claimed to have been unfairly dismissed by the employer on 4 October 2025. However, the employee submitted a resignation letter to the employer on 4 October 2025, there is no basis to find that the employer stated that all employees’ salaries would be reduced if the employee did not resign, and even assuming such a statement had been made, it is difficult to view the employee as having been deprived of the ability to make an independent decision. The resignation letter is therefore valid. Accordingly, it cannot be found that a dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: - Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of decision: - Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, effectiveness of resignation letter (statement on salary reduction), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on Failure to Supplement (Dismissal of Application for Remedy),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the effectiveness of resignation letters (statement on salary reduction) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Effectiveness of Resignation Letters (Statement on Salary Reduction).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “effectiveness of a resignation letter (statement on salary reduction).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9530 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.14 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee claimed to have been unfairly dismissed by the employer on 4 October 2025. However, the employee submitted a resignation letter to the employer on 4 October 2025, there was no basis to find that the employer stated that all employees’ salaries would be reduced if the employee did not resign, and even assuming such a statement had been made, it was difficult to view the employee as having been deprived of the ability to make an independent decision. Accordingly, the resignation letter was held to be effective, and so on.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed unfair dismissal, asserting that they had no choice but to submit a resignation letter due to pressure from the employer, and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the circumstances surrounding the submission of the resignation letter and the employer’s statements at the time, and determined whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal or a voluntary resignation.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee has submitted a resignation letter and alleges that the employer made a statement to the effect that ‘if you do not resign, I will cut the salaries of all employees,’ whether such resignation constitutes a genuinely voluntary resignation, or in substance amounts to an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that there was insufficient objective evidence to conclude that the employer actually stated to the employee that all employees’ salaries would be reduced if the employee did not resign; that even if such a statement had been made, it was difficult to view the employee as having been completely deprived of the ability to make a free and independent decision; and that it was clear the employee personally drafted and submitted the resignation letter.
Accordingly, the panel held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and that the employment relationship ended not by an unfair dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent, but by the employee’s submission of a resignation letter.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to assert unfair dismissal on the basis of a “forced resignation,” mere feelings of pressure or abstract anxiety are not sufficient. Objective evidence such as recordings, text messages, messenger logs, and statements from colleagues that can substantiate specific circumstances of threats or coercion should be secured. In addition, it is important to clearly express an intention to withdraw the resignation immediately before or right after submitting the resignation letter, and to keep a record of the employer’s response, as this can serve as crucial evidence in any subsequent dispute.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is possible to recommend resignation in the course of restructuring or attempting to avoid collective redundancies. However, excessive pressure using wage reductions or other disadvantages as leverage should be avoided, as there is a risk that it may later be deemed a “dismissal disguised as voluntary resignation.” Where resignation is recommended or discussed, the process should, as far as possible, be documented in writing or by email; expressions that may be misunderstood as threats or coercion should be avoided; and procedures should be designed so that the employee’s voluntary choice is clearly reflected.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee claimed to have been unfairly dismissed by the employer on 4 October 2025. However, the employee submitted a resignation letter to the employer on 4 October 2025, there is no basis to find that the employer stated that all employees’ salaries would be reduced if the employee did not resign, and even assuming such a statement had been made, it is difficult to view the employee as having been deprived of the ability to make an independent decision. The resignation letter is therefore valid. Accordingly, it cannot be found that a dismissal existed.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee claimed to have been unfairly dismissed by the employer on 4 October 2025. However, the employee submitted a resignation letter to the employer on 4 October 2025, there is no basis to find that the employer stated that all employees’ salaries would be reduced if the employee did not resign, and even assuming such a statement had been made, it is difficult to view the employee as having been deprived of the ability to make an independent decision. The resignation letter is therefore valid. Accordingly, it cannot be found that a dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: - Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of decision: - Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, effectiveness of resignation letter (statement on salary reduction), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on Failure to Supplement (Dismissal of Application for Remedy),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the effectiveness of resignation letters (statement on salary reduction) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Effectiveness of Resignation Letters (Statement on Salary Reduction).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
