Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on the Existence of Dismissal (Telephone Call Around the CSAT) (Unfair Dismissal 282)
- Date2026/03/14 04:09
- Read 233
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (telephone call around the CSAT).”
Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9100 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) the employer did not clearly express an intention to dismiss during the call; (ii) the call appears to have been largely in the nature of a consultation regarding changes to class schedules before and after the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT); (iii) immediately after the call, the employee phoned the vice principal and suggested bringing forward the end date of the employment contract; (iv) after the employee’s absence without leave on 19 November 2025, the employer repeatedly urged the employee to come to work; in light of these circumstances, the employer in 2025 ...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This is a decision of the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, in which the Commission ruled in favor of the employer. An employee working at a private academy or school claimed that they had been dismissed following a telephone call and applied for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the content of the call and subsequent developments. Labor Law Firm Law& frequently advises on unfair dismissal and redundancy cases where the very existence of a dismissal is in dispute, and through this case we aim to organize some practical implications.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether, based solely on a telephone call regarding adjustment of classes before and after the CSAT and the subsequent circumstances, it can be deemed that the employer dismissed the employee—in other words, whether the ‘existence of a dismissal,’ which is a prerequisite for an unfair dismissal claim, can be recognized.”
The panel in this case noted that the employer did not explicitly express an intention to dismiss during the disputed call; that the call appears to have been largely in the nature of a consultation regarding plans to change class schedules around the CSAT; that immediately after the call, the employee instead requested the vice principal by phone to bring forward the end date of the employment contract; and that, even after the employee’s absence without leave, the employer repeatedly urged the employee to return to work.
Accordingly, the panel held that, as there was no specific evidence to support the view that the employer dismissed the employee as of 14 November 2025, the dismissal at issue did not exist from the outset.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
First, the Labor Relations Commission placed weight on the fact that, in the telephone conversation between the parties, there was no confirmation that the employer used clear expressions of dismissal such as “quit” or “you are fired.” Second, it pointed out that the context of the call was closer to a process of adjusting plans for changes and operation of classes before and after the CSAT, and thus appeared to be a consultation on working arrangements rather than a unilateral notice of termination of the employment relationship. Third, it noted the circumstances that immediately after the call, the employee themself suggested to the vice principal bringing forward the end date of the employment contract. Fourth, it took into account that, although the employee was absent without leave from 19 November 2025, the employer repeatedly encouraged the employee to come to work. Based on these factors taken together, the Commission found that there was no objective and concrete evidence that the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment contract.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees who wish to allege unfair dismissal must bear in mind the need to prove, with objective evidence, that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship—that is, the very “existence of a dismissal.” It is important to organize and preserve as concretely as possible the content and timing of any actual expression of an intention to dismiss by the employer in telephone calls, oral conversations, and messenger exchanges, as well as whether the employer subsequently encouraged the employee to return to work. In addition, consultation processes such as discussions on class adjustments or changes in working patterns, and unilateral expressions of intent to terminate that amount to a notice of dismissal, may be evaluated completely differently in legal terms. Accordingly, employees should accurately confirm the employer’s wording at the time of the call and, if necessary, reconfirm the facts by text message or email.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if there is no actual intention to terminate the employment relationship, it is necessary to avoid using language in telephone or oral communications that could be misunderstood as “dismissal,” even when using strong expressions, and to make it clear that the purpose is consultation or adjustment. Conversely, if the employer genuinely intends to dismiss, the employer must, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal so that the existence and timing of the dismissal are clearly established, thereby preventing future unfair dismissal disputes. In industries such as private academies and schools, where class adjustments are frequent depending on schedules such as the CSAT, it is particularly important, when discussing class changes or adjustments to contract periods, to clearly distinguish in documents or messages whether the discussion is a “consultation” or a “notice of termination.”
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of (i) the fact that the employer did not explicitly express an intention to dismiss during the call; (ii) the fact that the content of the call appears to have been largely in the nature of a consultation regarding plans to change class schedules before and after the CSAT; (iii) the fact that immediately after the call, the employee suggested to the vice principal by phone that the end date of the employment contract be brought forward; and (iv) the fact that, after the employee’s absence without leave on 19 November 2025, the employer repeatedly encouraged the employee to come to work, there was no specific evidence presented or proven that the employer dismissed the employee as of 14 November 2025. Accordingly, the dismissal at issue does not exist.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of (i) the fact that the employer did not explicitly express an intention to dismiss during the call; (ii) the fact that the content of the call appears to have been largely in the nature of a consultation regarding plans to change class schedules before and after the CSAT; (iii) the fact that immediately after the call, the employee suggested to the vice principal by phone that the end date of the employment contract be brought forward; and (iv) the fact that, after the employee’s absence without leave on 19 November 2025, the employer repeatedly encouraged the employee to come to work, there was no specific evidence presented or proven that the employer dismissed the employee as of 14 November 2025. Accordingly, the dismissal at issue does not exist. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (telephone call around the CSAT), 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 Decision on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (One Day of Unauthorised Absence),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (telephone call around the CSAT) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Existence of Dismissal (Telephone Call Around the CSAT).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (telephone call around the CSAT).”
Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9100 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) the employer did not clearly express an intention to dismiss during the call; (ii) the call appears to have been largely in the nature of a consultation regarding changes to class schedules before and after the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT); (iii) immediately after the call, the employee phoned the vice principal and suggested bringing forward the end date of the employment contract; (iv) after the employee’s absence without leave on 19 November 2025, the employer repeatedly urged the employee to come to work; in light of these circumstances, the employer in 2025 ...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This is a decision of the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, in which the Commission ruled in favor of the employer. An employee working at a private academy or school claimed that they had been dismissed following a telephone call and applied for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the content of the call and subsequent developments. Labor Law Firm Law& frequently advises on unfair dismissal and redundancy cases where the very existence of a dismissal is in dispute, and through this case we aim to organize some practical implications.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether, based solely on a telephone call regarding adjustment of classes before and after the CSAT and the subsequent circumstances, it can be deemed that the employer dismissed the employee—in other words, whether the ‘existence of a dismissal,’ which is a prerequisite for an unfair dismissal claim, can be recognized.”
The panel in this case noted that the employer did not explicitly express an intention to dismiss during the disputed call; that the call appears to have been largely in the nature of a consultation regarding plans to change class schedules around the CSAT; that immediately after the call, the employee instead requested the vice principal by phone to bring forward the end date of the employment contract; and that, even after the employee’s absence without leave, the employer repeatedly urged the employee to return to work.
Accordingly, the panel held that, as there was no specific evidence to support the view that the employer dismissed the employee as of 14 November 2025, the dismissal at issue did not exist from the outset.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
First, the Labor Relations Commission placed weight on the fact that, in the telephone conversation between the parties, there was no confirmation that the employer used clear expressions of dismissal such as “quit” or “you are fired.” Second, it pointed out that the context of the call was closer to a process of adjusting plans for changes and operation of classes before and after the CSAT, and thus appeared to be a consultation on working arrangements rather than a unilateral notice of termination of the employment relationship. Third, it noted the circumstances that immediately after the call, the employee themself suggested to the vice principal bringing forward the end date of the employment contract. Fourth, it took into account that, although the employee was absent without leave from 19 November 2025, the employer repeatedly encouraged the employee to come to work. Based on these factors taken together, the Commission found that there was no objective and concrete evidence that the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment contract.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees who wish to allege unfair dismissal must bear in mind the need to prove, with objective evidence, that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship—that is, the very “existence of a dismissal.” It is important to organize and preserve as concretely as possible the content and timing of any actual expression of an intention to dismiss by the employer in telephone calls, oral conversations, and messenger exchanges, as well as whether the employer subsequently encouraged the employee to return to work. In addition, consultation processes such as discussions on class adjustments or changes in working patterns, and unilateral expressions of intent to terminate that amount to a notice of dismissal, may be evaluated completely differently in legal terms. Accordingly, employees should accurately confirm the employer’s wording at the time of the call and, if necessary, reconfirm the facts by text message or email.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if there is no actual intention to terminate the employment relationship, it is necessary to avoid using language in telephone or oral communications that could be misunderstood as “dismissal,” even when using strong expressions, and to make it clear that the purpose is consultation or adjustment. Conversely, if the employer genuinely intends to dismiss, the employer must, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal so that the existence and timing of the dismissal are clearly established, thereby preventing future unfair dismissal disputes. In industries such as private academies and schools, where class adjustments are frequent depending on schedules such as the CSAT, it is particularly important, when discussing class changes or adjustments to contract periods, to clearly distinguish in documents or messages whether the discussion is a “consultation” or a “notice of termination.”
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of (i) the fact that the employer did not explicitly express an intention to dismiss during the call; (ii) the fact that the content of the call appears to have been largely in the nature of a consultation regarding plans to change class schedules before and after the CSAT; (iii) the fact that immediately after the call, the employee suggested to the vice principal by phone that the end date of the employment contract be brought forward; and (iv) the fact that, after the employee’s absence without leave on 19 November 2025, the employer repeatedly encouraged the employee to come to work, there was no specific evidence presented or proven that the employer dismissed the employee as of 14 November 2025. Accordingly, the dismissal at issue does not exist.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of (i) the fact that the employer did not explicitly express an intention to dismiss during the call; (ii) the fact that the content of the call appears to have been largely in the nature of a consultation regarding plans to change class schedules before and after the CSAT; (iii) the fact that immediately after the call, the employee suggested to the vice principal by phone that the end date of the employment contract be brought forward; and (iv) the fact that, after the employee’s absence without leave on 19 November 2025, the employer repeatedly encouraged the employee to come to work, there was no specific evidence presented or proven that the employer dismissed the employee as of 14 November 2025. Accordingly, the dismissal at issue does not exist. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (telephone call around the CSAT), 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 Decision on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (One Day of Unauthorised Absence),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (telephone call around the CSAT) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Existence of Dismissal (Telephone Call Around the CSAT).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
