Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on the “Existence of Dismissal (Food Service Resignation Recommendation by Phone)” (Unfair Dismissal 304)
- Date2026/03/21 04:13
- Read 194
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (food service resignation recommendation by phone).”
Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9614 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (1) With respect to the circumstances surrounding the termination of the employment relationship, the worker claimed that the employer said, “I don’t think you are suited to the food service industry.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a worker at a food service business who, after the employment relationship was terminated, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The worker asserted that, during a telephone call, the employer unilaterally dismissed him by saying, “I don’t think you are suited to the food service industry. Do not come in from tomorrow.” In contrast, the employer argued that it had merely recommended that the worker resign, and that the worker accepted this suggestion and voluntarily agreed to resign.
The worker subsequently filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that it was difficult to recognize that a dismissal had in fact occurred.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in light of the circumstances as a whole—including the employer’s recommendation to resign made over the phone at a food service workplace and the worker’s text messages—the termination of the employment relationship should be viewed as a unilateral dismissal by the employer, or as a resignation/termination by mutual agreement by the worker.
In particular, in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the core question was whether, based solely on conflicting statements by the parties and limited text message evidence, it is possible to accept either party’s assertion regarding “whether a dismissal actually existed.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found as follows: the employer stated that, when recommending resignation, it told the worker that it would give him time to look for another job, and that the worker responded, “I understand.” The text message the worker sent immediately after the call—“Then does that mean I don’t have to come to work from tomorrow?”—appeared more like a confirmation of the employer’s statement that “you may resign at a later time” than a protest immediately following a notice of dismissal. There was no other written or objective evidence proving that the employer had dismissed the worker, and there was no indication that the worker immediately raised any objection with the employer regarding a dismissal.
In light of these factors, the panel held that it was difficult to conclude that there had been an explicit notice of dismissal in the form alleged by the worker—namely, “Do not come in from tomorrow”—and, considering the overall circumstances, it was hard to recognize that there had been a unilateral dismissal by the employer.
Ultimately, the panel determined that, because the “very existence of a dismissal” could not be recognized, the measure in question did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, to assert unfair dismissal, mere recollection or impression is not sufficient; you should secure, as promptly as possible, evidence such as text messages, recordings, and messenger logs that clearly show the specific content and timing of any dismissal notice. If you receive a recommendation to resign but wish to continue working, it is important to clearly record your position—e.g., “I do not intend to resign; I wish to continue working”—via text message or email, and to consistently document any subsequent objections raised with the company.
Furthermore, the employer’s statements such as “It would be better if you quit,” or “I don’t think you are suited to the food service industry,” may not, by themselves, be recognized as a dismissal in the legal sense. Accordingly, you should also organize and record what concrete measures followed those statements, including whether you continued to report to work, how wages were handled, and how the four major social insurances were processed.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, if you intend to assert that the employment relationship ended by the worker’s resignation or by mutual agreement, you should not rely solely on oral conversations. It is necessary to clearly document the worker’s voluntary expression of intent to resign through a resignation letter, text message, email, or similar written form. In industries such as food service, where HR management is often conducted orally on site, it is particularly important to prevent confusion between a “recommendation to resign” and a “notice of dismissal” by documenting in writing the purpose of the recommendation to resign, the worker’s response, and the expected date of resignation.
In addition, in situations such as restructuring or mass layoffs where it is necessary to terminate the employment relationship based on the employer’s unilateral decision, it is more advantageous in the long run, for the purpose of preventing disputes, to comply with the restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act and to ensure the substantive and procedural justifiability of the dismissal, rather than attempting to package it in the form of a resignation.
(ⓒ Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) With respect to the circumstances surrounding the termination of the employment relationship, the worker claimed that the employer notified him, “I don’t think you are suited to the food service industry. Do not come in from tomorrow,” whereas the employer claimed that it recommended that the worker resign and told him it would give him time to look for another job, and that the worker accepted this recommendation by responding, “I understand,” such that the parties’ statements were in conflict; (2) the text message the worker sent to the employer immediately after the call—“Then does that mean I don’t have to come to work from tomorrow?”—is difficult to view as a statement made immediately after being dismissed, and instead appears to be a response to the employer’s statement that “you may resign at a later time”; (3) there is no other evidence proving that the employer dismissed the worker; and (4) there is no indication that the worker raised any objection with the employer regarding the alleged dismissal. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to find that a dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) With respect to the circumstances surrounding the termination of the employment relationship, the worker claimed that the employer notified him, “I don’t think you are suited to the food service industry. Do not come in from tomorrow,” whereas the employer claimed that it recommended that the worker resign and told him it would give him time to look for another job, and that the worker accepted this recommendation by responding, “I understand,” such that the parties’ statements were in conflict; (2) the text message the worker sent to the employer immediately after the call—“Then does that mean I don’t have to come to work from tomorrow?”—is difficult to view as a statement made immediately after being dismissed, and instead appears to be a response to the employer’s statement that “you may resign at a later time”; (3) there is no other evidence proving that the employer dismissed the worker; and (4) there is no indication that the worker raised any objection with the employer regarding the alleged dismissal. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to find that a dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Unauthorized Absence (Failure to Return After Expiry of Sick Leave)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (food service resignation recommendation by phone), 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Disciplinary Measure Level (Manipulation of Recruitment Evaluation)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (food service resignation recommendation by phone) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Food Service Resignation Recommendation by Phone).”
※ 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 (food service resignation recommendation by phone).”
Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9614 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (1) With respect to the circumstances surrounding the termination of the employment relationship, the worker claimed that the employer said, “I don’t think you are suited to the food service industry.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a worker at a food service business who, after the employment relationship was terminated, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The worker asserted that, during a telephone call, the employer unilaterally dismissed him by saying, “I don’t think you are suited to the food service industry. Do not come in from tomorrow.” In contrast, the employer argued that it had merely recommended that the worker resign, and that the worker accepted this suggestion and voluntarily agreed to resign.
The worker subsequently filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that it was difficult to recognize that a dismissal had in fact occurred.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in light of the circumstances as a whole—including the employer’s recommendation to resign made over the phone at a food service workplace and the worker’s text messages—the termination of the employment relationship should be viewed as a unilateral dismissal by the employer, or as a resignation/termination by mutual agreement by the worker.
In particular, in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the core question was whether, based solely on conflicting statements by the parties and limited text message evidence, it is possible to accept either party’s assertion regarding “whether a dismissal actually existed.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found as follows: the employer stated that, when recommending resignation, it told the worker that it would give him time to look for another job, and that the worker responded, “I understand.” The text message the worker sent immediately after the call—“Then does that mean I don’t have to come to work from tomorrow?”—appeared more like a confirmation of the employer’s statement that “you may resign at a later time” than a protest immediately following a notice of dismissal. There was no other written or objective evidence proving that the employer had dismissed the worker, and there was no indication that the worker immediately raised any objection with the employer regarding a dismissal.
In light of these factors, the panel held that it was difficult to conclude that there had been an explicit notice of dismissal in the form alleged by the worker—namely, “Do not come in from tomorrow”—and, considering the overall circumstances, it was hard to recognize that there had been a unilateral dismissal by the employer.
Ultimately, the panel determined that, because the “very existence of a dismissal” could not be recognized, the measure in question did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, to assert unfair dismissal, mere recollection or impression is not sufficient; you should secure, as promptly as possible, evidence such as text messages, recordings, and messenger logs that clearly show the specific content and timing of any dismissal notice. If you receive a recommendation to resign but wish to continue working, it is important to clearly record your position—e.g., “I do not intend to resign; I wish to continue working”—via text message or email, and to consistently document any subsequent objections raised with the company.
Furthermore, the employer’s statements such as “It would be better if you quit,” or “I don’t think you are suited to the food service industry,” may not, by themselves, be recognized as a dismissal in the legal sense. Accordingly, you should also organize and record what concrete measures followed those statements, including whether you continued to report to work, how wages were handled, and how the four major social insurances were processed.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, if you intend to assert that the employment relationship ended by the worker’s resignation or by mutual agreement, you should not rely solely on oral conversations. It is necessary to clearly document the worker’s voluntary expression of intent to resign through a resignation letter, text message, email, or similar written form. In industries such as food service, where HR management is often conducted orally on site, it is particularly important to prevent confusion between a “recommendation to resign” and a “notice of dismissal” by documenting in writing the purpose of the recommendation to resign, the worker’s response, and the expected date of resignation.
In addition, in situations such as restructuring or mass layoffs where it is necessary to terminate the employment relationship based on the employer’s unilateral decision, it is more advantageous in the long run, for the purpose of preventing disputes, to comply with the restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act and to ensure the substantive and procedural justifiability of the dismissal, rather than attempting to package it in the form of a resignation.
(ⓒ Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) With respect to the circumstances surrounding the termination of the employment relationship, the worker claimed that the employer notified him, “I don’t think you are suited to the food service industry. Do not come in from tomorrow,” whereas the employer claimed that it recommended that the worker resign and told him it would give him time to look for another job, and that the worker accepted this recommendation by responding, “I understand,” such that the parties’ statements were in conflict; (2) the text message the worker sent to the employer immediately after the call—“Then does that mean I don’t have to come to work from tomorrow?”—is difficult to view as a statement made immediately after being dismissed, and instead appears to be a response to the employer’s statement that “you may resign at a later time”; (3) there is no other evidence proving that the employer dismissed the worker; and (4) there is no indication that the worker raised any objection with the employer regarding the alleged dismissal. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to find that a dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) With respect to the circumstances surrounding the termination of the employment relationship, the worker claimed that the employer notified him, “I don’t think you are suited to the food service industry. Do not come in from tomorrow,” whereas the employer claimed that it recommended that the worker resign and told him it would give him time to look for another job, and that the worker accepted this recommendation by responding, “I understand,” such that the parties’ statements were in conflict; (2) the text message the worker sent to the employer immediately after the call—“Then does that mean I don’t have to come to work from tomorrow?”—is difficult to view as a statement made immediately after being dismissed, and instead appears to be a response to the employer’s statement that “you may resign at a later time”; (3) there is no other evidence proving that the employer dismissed the worker; and (4) there is no indication that the worker raised any objection with the employer regarding the alleged dismissal. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to find that a dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Unauthorized Absence (Failure to Return After Expiry of Sick Leave)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (food service resignation recommendation by phone), 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Disciplinary Measure Level (Manipulation of Recruitment Evaluation)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (food service resignation recommendation by phone) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Food Service Resignation Recommendation by Phone).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
