Corporate trends / Performance record
Case Precedent on “Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Site Foreman’s Remarks)” in Unfair Dismissal (Unfair Dismissal 333)
- Date2026/03/31 04:09
- Read 177
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the issue of “expression of intent to dismiss (site foreman’s remarks)” was ultimately concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9016 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.27 · Case Result: First‑instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
① The employees argued that the foreman was a person acting on behalf of the employer and had personnel authority. However, it was difficult to conclude that the employer had delegated to this foreman personnel authority such as hiring and dismissal. In light of the statements that a site manager was resident at the site and that there were multiple foremen for each process, it was difficult to view that personnel authority had been delegated solely to this foreman.
② Although the employees present at the site at the time had no work assigned that day, they were at the site and, unlike other workers, did not participate in the prescribed calisthenics, which led to friction with the foreman. Even though they were at the site...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
Employees who claimed unfair dismissal filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, but both the first‑instance commission and the Central Labor Relations Commission on re‑examination found in favor of the employer. At what appears to be a construction site, employees who left the site after a conflict with a foreman claimed they had been dismissed. However, the Labor Relations Commission viewed the very existence of a dismissal by the employer as questionable, and ultimately held that unfair dismissal was not established.
In this case, in addition to the question of whether there was an unfair dismissal, the key issue was whether the site foreman’s remarks constituted an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss, or were merely a work‑related reprimand. In this context, this precedent is one in which Labor Law Firm Law& found it necessary, for practical purposes, to整理 (organize) the meaning of the decision by comparing it with the general legal principles on collective redundancies and disciplinary dismissals.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the site foreman’s remark to employees who did not participate in calisthenics, ‘If you’re not going to do the calisthenics, then leave,’ constitutes an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss and thus an unfair dismissal, or whether it is merely a work instruction/reprimand such that no dismissal exists at all.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that it was difficult to view the foreman, alleged to be a person acting on behalf of the employer, as having been delegated personnel authority such as hiring and dismissal by the employer; that a site manager was resident at the site and multiple foremen existed for each process, making it impossible to see personnel authority as concentrated in a particular foreman; that the foreman’s remark, “If you’re not going to do the calisthenics, then leave,” appeared to be a reprimand raising an issue with the failure to perform the prescribed calisthenics, and was difficult to regard as a specific and final notice of termination of the employment relationship in the usual sense of an expression of intent to dismiss; and that, although the employees claimed this was a dismissal, they did not check the fact of dismissal or raise any objection with higher‑ranking personnel such as the site manager or the safety manager who had been present when the employment contracts were drawn up, but instead left the site on their own after an emotional dispute with the foreman.
In light of these circumstances,
the Commission held that it was difficult to find that there had been a dismissal by the employer, and consequently determined that the case did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even where there are harsh remarks from a superior at the site, it is important to note that, for such remarks to be legally recognized as a “dismissal,” they must constitute an expression of intent to dismiss by an employer who has personnel authority, and their content must clearly notify the termination of the employment contract. If a situation arises that feels like a dismissal, you should immediately confirm with a higher‑level person with personnel authority—such as the site manager or HR officer—whether you have in fact been dismissed, and preserve the specific wording and circumstances via text message, audio recording, messenger, etc. These can become key evidence in Labor Relations Commission remedy proceedings.
Furthermore, if you treat a mere reprimand or work instruction (e.g., participation in calisthenics, compliance with safety rules) as a dismissal and resign of your own accord, it may be difficult to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal afterwards. Before leaving the workplace in the heat of the moment, it is advisable to整理 (organize) the facts and raise the issue in writing.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, it is important to clearly define the scope of personnel authority of middle managers such as site foremen and team leaders, and to make it clear through work rules, HR regulations, and training that they do not have authority to hire or dismiss. In particular, they should be instructed to refrain from using expressions that could be misunderstood as dismissal, such as “Quit” or “Get out,” and, where necessary, to整理 (document) the fact that the remarks were intended as a warning or instruction, in the form of a written statement of circumstances, text messages, or minutes of meetings, as this will help prevent disputes.
In addition, if an employee misunderstands certain remarks as a dismissal and leaves the workplace, the company should immediately contact the employee to urge a return to work and clearly notify that the company has no intent to dismiss. Doing so can reduce future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission over the “very existence of a dismissal.”
In this type of dispute, the evidentiary structure concerning the “existence and subject of the expression of intent to dismiss” is as crucial as the general legal principles on unfair dismissal and collective redundancies. Accordingly, it is advisable to consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance to establish training for on‑site managers and a document management system.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The employees argued that this foreman was a person acting on behalf of the employer and had personnel authority. However, it is difficult to conclude that the employer delegated to this foreman personnel authority such as hiring and dismissal. In light of the statements that a site manager was resident at the site and that there were multiple foremen for each process, it is difficult to view that personnel authority had been delegated solely to this foreman.
② Although the employees present at the site at the time had no work assigned that day, they were at the site and, unlike other workers, did not participate in the prescribed calisthenics, which led to friction with this foreman. The employees in this case took the foreman’s remark, “If you’re not going to do the calisthenics, then leave,” as an expression of intent to dismiss. However, this was a raising of an issue with their failure to perform calisthenics and is difficult to regard as an expression of intent to dismiss.
③ Meanwhile, although the employees claimed that the foreman’s remarks constituted their dismissal, they did not check the fact of dismissal or raise any objection with higher‑ranking personnel than the foreman, such as the site manager or the safety manager who had been present when the employment contracts were drawn up. There is ample room to view that they left the workplace as a de facto resignation due to friction and an emotional dispute with the foreman.
④ In light of the above, it is difficult to recognize that the employer dismissed the employees.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The employees argued that this foreman was a person acting on behalf of the employer and had personnel authority. However, it is difficult to conclude that the employer delegated to this foreman personnel authority such as hiring and dismissal. In light of the statements that a site manager was resident at the site and that there were multiple foremen for each process, it is difficult to view that personnel authority had been delegated solely to this foreman.
② Although the employees present at the site at the time had no work assigned that day, they were at the site and, unlike other workers, did not participate in the prescribed calisthenics, which led to friction with this foreman. The employees in this case took the foreman’s remark, “If you’re not going to do the calisthenics, then leave,” as an expression of intent to dismiss. However, this was a raising of an issue with their failure to perform calisthenics and is difficult to regard as an expression of intent to dismiss.
③ Meanwhile, although the employees claimed that the foreman’s remarks constituted their dismissal, they did not check the fact of dismissal or raise any objection with higher‑ranking personnel than the foreman, such as the site manager or the safety manager who had been present when the employment contracts were drawn up. There is ample room to view that they left the workplace as a de facto resignation due to friction and an emotional dispute with the foreman.
④ In light of the above, it is difficult to recognize that the employer dismissed the employees. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non‑existence of Disciplinary Cause (Oriental Clinic Orders, Chuna Therapy, Meal Conduct)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non‑formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to dismiss (site foreman’s remarks), 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 in the “Unfair Dismissal Case Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non‑existence of Disciplinary Cause (Oriental Clinic Orders, Chuna Therapy, Meal Conduct)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents relating to expression of intent to dismiss (site foreman’s remarks) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Relating to Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Site Foreman’s Remarks).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the issue of “expression of intent to dismiss (site foreman’s remarks)” was ultimately concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9016 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.27 · Case Result: First‑instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
① The employees argued that the foreman was a person acting on behalf of the employer and had personnel authority. However, it was difficult to conclude that the employer had delegated to this foreman personnel authority such as hiring and dismissal. In light of the statements that a site manager was resident at the site and that there were multiple foremen for each process, it was difficult to view that personnel authority had been delegated solely to this foreman.
② Although the employees present at the site at the time had no work assigned that day, they were at the site and, unlike other workers, did not participate in the prescribed calisthenics, which led to friction with the foreman. Even though they were at the site...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
Employees who claimed unfair dismissal filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, but both the first‑instance commission and the Central Labor Relations Commission on re‑examination found in favor of the employer. At what appears to be a construction site, employees who left the site after a conflict with a foreman claimed they had been dismissed. However, the Labor Relations Commission viewed the very existence of a dismissal by the employer as questionable, and ultimately held that unfair dismissal was not established.
In this case, in addition to the question of whether there was an unfair dismissal, the key issue was whether the site foreman’s remarks constituted an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss, or were merely a work‑related reprimand. In this context, this precedent is one in which Labor Law Firm Law& found it necessary, for practical purposes, to整理 (organize) the meaning of the decision by comparing it with the general legal principles on collective redundancies and disciplinary dismissals.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the site foreman’s remark to employees who did not participate in calisthenics, ‘If you’re not going to do the calisthenics, then leave,’ constitutes an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss and thus an unfair dismissal, or whether it is merely a work instruction/reprimand such that no dismissal exists at all.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that it was difficult to view the foreman, alleged to be a person acting on behalf of the employer, as having been delegated personnel authority such as hiring and dismissal by the employer; that a site manager was resident at the site and multiple foremen existed for each process, making it impossible to see personnel authority as concentrated in a particular foreman; that the foreman’s remark, “If you’re not going to do the calisthenics, then leave,” appeared to be a reprimand raising an issue with the failure to perform the prescribed calisthenics, and was difficult to regard as a specific and final notice of termination of the employment relationship in the usual sense of an expression of intent to dismiss; and that, although the employees claimed this was a dismissal, they did not check the fact of dismissal or raise any objection with higher‑ranking personnel such as the site manager or the safety manager who had been present when the employment contracts were drawn up, but instead left the site on their own after an emotional dispute with the foreman.
In light of these circumstances,
the Commission held that it was difficult to find that there had been a dismissal by the employer, and consequently determined that the case did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even where there are harsh remarks from a superior at the site, it is important to note that, for such remarks to be legally recognized as a “dismissal,” they must constitute an expression of intent to dismiss by an employer who has personnel authority, and their content must clearly notify the termination of the employment contract. If a situation arises that feels like a dismissal, you should immediately confirm with a higher‑level person with personnel authority—such as the site manager or HR officer—whether you have in fact been dismissed, and preserve the specific wording and circumstances via text message, audio recording, messenger, etc. These can become key evidence in Labor Relations Commission remedy proceedings.
Furthermore, if you treat a mere reprimand or work instruction (e.g., participation in calisthenics, compliance with safety rules) as a dismissal and resign of your own accord, it may be difficult to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal afterwards. Before leaving the workplace in the heat of the moment, it is advisable to整理 (organize) the facts and raise the issue in writing.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, it is important to clearly define the scope of personnel authority of middle managers such as site foremen and team leaders, and to make it clear through work rules, HR regulations, and training that they do not have authority to hire or dismiss. In particular, they should be instructed to refrain from using expressions that could be misunderstood as dismissal, such as “Quit” or “Get out,” and, where necessary, to整理 (document) the fact that the remarks were intended as a warning or instruction, in the form of a written statement of circumstances, text messages, or minutes of meetings, as this will help prevent disputes.
In addition, if an employee misunderstands certain remarks as a dismissal and leaves the workplace, the company should immediately contact the employee to urge a return to work and clearly notify that the company has no intent to dismiss. Doing so can reduce future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission over the “very existence of a dismissal.”
In this type of dispute, the evidentiary structure concerning the “existence and subject of the expression of intent to dismiss” is as crucial as the general legal principles on unfair dismissal and collective redundancies. Accordingly, it is advisable to consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance to establish training for on‑site managers and a document management system.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The employees argued that this foreman was a person acting on behalf of the employer and had personnel authority. However, it is difficult to conclude that the employer delegated to this foreman personnel authority such as hiring and dismissal. In light of the statements that a site manager was resident at the site and that there were multiple foremen for each process, it is difficult to view that personnel authority had been delegated solely to this foreman.
② Although the employees present at the site at the time had no work assigned that day, they were at the site and, unlike other workers, did not participate in the prescribed calisthenics, which led to friction with this foreman. The employees in this case took the foreman’s remark, “If you’re not going to do the calisthenics, then leave,” as an expression of intent to dismiss. However, this was a raising of an issue with their failure to perform calisthenics and is difficult to regard as an expression of intent to dismiss.
③ Meanwhile, although the employees claimed that the foreman’s remarks constituted their dismissal, they did not check the fact of dismissal or raise any objection with higher‑ranking personnel than the foreman, such as the site manager or the safety manager who had been present when the employment contracts were drawn up. There is ample room to view that they left the workplace as a de facto resignation due to friction and an emotional dispute with the foreman.
④ In light of the above, it is difficult to recognize that the employer dismissed the employees.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The employees argued that this foreman was a person acting on behalf of the employer and had personnel authority. However, it is difficult to conclude that the employer delegated to this foreman personnel authority such as hiring and dismissal. In light of the statements that a site manager was resident at the site and that there were multiple foremen for each process, it is difficult to view that personnel authority had been delegated solely to this foreman.
② Although the employees present at the site at the time had no work assigned that day, they were at the site and, unlike other workers, did not participate in the prescribed calisthenics, which led to friction with this foreman. The employees in this case took the foreman’s remark, “If you’re not going to do the calisthenics, then leave,” as an expression of intent to dismiss. However, this was a raising of an issue with their failure to perform calisthenics and is difficult to regard as an expression of intent to dismiss.
③ Meanwhile, although the employees claimed that the foreman’s remarks constituted their dismissal, they did not check the fact of dismissal or raise any objection with higher‑ranking personnel than the foreman, such as the site manager or the safety manager who had been present when the employment contracts were drawn up. There is ample room to view that they left the workplace as a de facto resignation due to friction and an emotional dispute with the foreman.
④ In light of the above, it is difficult to recognize that the employer dismissed the employees. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non‑existence of Disciplinary Cause (Oriental Clinic Orders, Chuna Therapy, Meal Conduct)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non‑formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to dismiss (site foreman’s remarks), 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 in the “Unfair Dismissal Case Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non‑existence of Disciplinary Cause (Oriental Clinic Orders, Chuna Therapy, Meal Conduct)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents relating to expression of intent to dismiss (site foreman’s remarks) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Relating to Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Site Foreman’s Remarks).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
