Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Existence of Dismissal (Suspension · Standby Order Recording)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 287)
- Date2026/03/16 04:04
- Read 216
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “existence of dismissal (suspension · standby order recording).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9520 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: According to the recording between the employee and the CEO, it is difficult to confirm that the employer actually carried out a dismissal; rather, it is deemed that the employer only issued a standby order, instructing the employee to remain at home without performing any work. The term “suspension” used by the employer is reasonably interpreted as meaning that the employee would not be assigned to work due to the standby order. Taking into comprehensive account that the employee’s employment insurance insured status was not lost but remained in effect, it was determined that no dismissal existed...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that he had in effect been unfairly dismissed following an interview with the CEO. At the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, however, the central issue became whether a dismissal existed at all. The Commission proceeded on the premise that the key question was whether the employer had in fact carried out a dismissal, after comprehensively examining the recording, the status of the employee’s employment insurance coverage, and the nature of the employer’s actions.
Labor Law Firm Law& considers that this decision once again confirms how crucial the determination of the very existence of a dismissal is in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases of this type.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employer used the term “suspension” toward the employee and instructed him only to remain on standby at home, this can be regarded as a dismissal, and further, whether there exists a “dismissal” that can be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case held that, based on the recording of the interview between the employee and the CEO, it was difficult to confirm that the employer had clearly notified the employee of the termination of the employment contract. Rather, it appeared that the employer had taken a standby order measure, instructing the employee to remain at home without being assigned any work.
The panel further found that the term “suspension” used by the employer was not intended to mean disciplinary dismissal or termination of the employment contract, but is reasonably to be interpreted as meaning that the employee would not be assigned to work for a certain period of time.
In addition, taking into account that the employee’s employment insurance insured status had not been lost and continued to be maintained, and that there was no evidence of separate advance notice of dismissal or written notice of dismissal, the panel concluded that no dismissal disposition existed in this case and therefore dismissed the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is necessary to carefully check whether the employer clearly expressed an intention to “dismiss” the employee, and whether objective measures such as filing a loss-of-coverage report for employment insurance, processing the employee as having left the company, or blocking access and work were taken. You should bear in mind that expressions such as “don’t come in” or “you are suspended” alone are unlikely to lead the Labor Relations Commission to recognize the existence of a dismissal, and may instead be regarded merely as a standby order or personnel measure.
Therefore, if a dispute is anticipated in a similar situation, it is important to secure as concretely as possible the employer’s expression of intent to dismiss and the measures to terminate the employment relationship, through recordings of interviews, text or messenger records, and copies of personnel documents.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where the measure is in fact only a standby order or removal from duties, the use of emotional expressions such as “quit” or “you are suspended” can give rise to disputes over whether a dismissal occurred before the Labor Relations Commission. It is therefore necessary to clearly distinguish and communicate the nature and scope of the personnel measure. When issuing a standby order, documenting matters such as maintenance of employment insurance insured status, whether wages will continue to be paid, and the possibility of future reinstatement will help demonstrate that the measure does not constitute a dismissal.
Conversely, if the employer actually intends to carry out a dismissal, failure to properly comply with procedures such as the statutory obligation to give written notice under the Labor Standards Act, specifying the reason and timing of the dismissal, and filing a report of loss of employment insurance coverage may later give rise to disputes over whether “no dismissal existed at all” or whether there was an “unfair dismissal.” It is therefore advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. 02.6741.0002)
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
According to the recording between the employee and the CEO, it is difficult to confirm that the employer actually carried out a dismissal; rather, it is deemed that the employer only issued a standby order, instructing the employee to remain at home without performing any work. The term “suspension” used by the employer is reasonably interpreted as meaning that the employee would not be assigned to work due to the standby order. Taking into comprehensive account that the employee’s employment insurance insured status was not lost but remained in effect, it is determined that no dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
According to the recording between the employee and the CEO, it is difficult to confirm that the employer actually carried out a dismissal; rather, it is deemed that the employer only issued a standby order, instructing the employee to remain at home without performing any work. The term “suspension” used by the employer is reasonably interpreted as meaning that the employee would not be assigned to work due to the standby order. Taking into comprehensive account that the employee’s employment insurance insured status was not lost but remained in effect, it is determined that no dismissal exists. /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Redundancy Requirements Not Satisfied (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (suspension · standby order recording), 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, “‘Mutual Cancellation of Resignation (Seal Across Pages · Handwritten)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (suspension · standby order recording) can be viewed together in the “Existence of Dismissal (Suspension · Standby Order Recording) Related Decisions” list.
※ 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 (suspension · standby order recording).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9520 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: According to the recording between the employee and the CEO, it is difficult to confirm that the employer actually carried out a dismissal; rather, it is deemed that the employer only issued a standby order, instructing the employee to remain at home without performing any work. The term “suspension” used by the employer is reasonably interpreted as meaning that the employee would not be assigned to work due to the standby order. Taking into comprehensive account that the employee’s employment insurance insured status was not lost but remained in effect, it was determined that no dismissal existed...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that he had in effect been unfairly dismissed following an interview with the CEO. At the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, however, the central issue became whether a dismissal existed at all. The Commission proceeded on the premise that the key question was whether the employer had in fact carried out a dismissal, after comprehensively examining the recording, the status of the employee’s employment insurance coverage, and the nature of the employer’s actions.
Labor Law Firm Law& considers that this decision once again confirms how crucial the determination of the very existence of a dismissal is in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases of this type.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employer used the term “suspension” toward the employee and instructed him only to remain on standby at home, this can be regarded as a dismissal, and further, whether there exists a “dismissal” that can be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case held that, based on the recording of the interview between the employee and the CEO, it was difficult to confirm that the employer had clearly notified the employee of the termination of the employment contract. Rather, it appeared that the employer had taken a standby order measure, instructing the employee to remain at home without being assigned any work.
The panel further found that the term “suspension” used by the employer was not intended to mean disciplinary dismissal or termination of the employment contract, but is reasonably to be interpreted as meaning that the employee would not be assigned to work for a certain period of time.
In addition, taking into account that the employee’s employment insurance insured status had not been lost and continued to be maintained, and that there was no evidence of separate advance notice of dismissal or written notice of dismissal, the panel concluded that no dismissal disposition existed in this case and therefore dismissed the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is necessary to carefully check whether the employer clearly expressed an intention to “dismiss” the employee, and whether objective measures such as filing a loss-of-coverage report for employment insurance, processing the employee as having left the company, or blocking access and work were taken. You should bear in mind that expressions such as “don’t come in” or “you are suspended” alone are unlikely to lead the Labor Relations Commission to recognize the existence of a dismissal, and may instead be regarded merely as a standby order or personnel measure.
Therefore, if a dispute is anticipated in a similar situation, it is important to secure as concretely as possible the employer’s expression of intent to dismiss and the measures to terminate the employment relationship, through recordings of interviews, text or messenger records, and copies of personnel documents.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where the measure is in fact only a standby order or removal from duties, the use of emotional expressions such as “quit” or “you are suspended” can give rise to disputes over whether a dismissal occurred before the Labor Relations Commission. It is therefore necessary to clearly distinguish and communicate the nature and scope of the personnel measure. When issuing a standby order, documenting matters such as maintenance of employment insurance insured status, whether wages will continue to be paid, and the possibility of future reinstatement will help demonstrate that the measure does not constitute a dismissal.
Conversely, if the employer actually intends to carry out a dismissal, failure to properly comply with procedures such as the statutory obligation to give written notice under the Labor Standards Act, specifying the reason and timing of the dismissal, and filing a report of loss of employment insurance coverage may later give rise to disputes over whether “no dismissal existed at all” or whether there was an “unfair dismissal.” It is therefore advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. 02.6741.0002)
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
According to the recording between the employee and the CEO, it is difficult to confirm that the employer actually carried out a dismissal; rather, it is deemed that the employer only issued a standby order, instructing the employee to remain at home without performing any work. The term “suspension” used by the employer is reasonably interpreted as meaning that the employee would not be assigned to work due to the standby order. Taking into comprehensive account that the employee’s employment insurance insured status was not lost but remained in effect, it is determined that no dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
According to the recording between the employee and the CEO, it is difficult to confirm that the employer actually carried out a dismissal; rather, it is deemed that the employer only issued a standby order, instructing the employee to remain at home without performing any work. The term “suspension” used by the employer is reasonably interpreted as meaning that the employee would not be assigned to work due to the standby order. Taking into comprehensive account that the employee’s employment insurance insured status was not lost but remained in effect, it is determined that no dismissal exists. /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Redundancy Requirements Not Satisfied (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (suspension · standby order recording), 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, “‘Mutual Cancellation of Resignation (Seal Across Pages · Handwritten)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (suspension · standby order recording) can be viewed together in the “Existence of Dismissal (Suspension · Standby Order Recording) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
