Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Right to Expect Renewal (Non-Regular Employment Plans Based on Changes in Workload)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 339)
- Date2026/04/02 04:08
- Read 172
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “right to expect renewal (non-regular employment plans based on changes in workload).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 4 ○○○
Unfair Dismissal Relief Application · 26 February 2026 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a fixed-term employee was refused renewal of his/her employment contract upon its expiry and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the long-term, repeatedly renewed contractual relationship between the employer and the employee, as well as the circumstances surrounding the non-regular employment plan and changes in workload, to determine whether unfair dismissal had occurred.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a fixed-term employment relationship that has been repeatedly renewed over a long period, where the employee is recognized as having a right to expect renewal of the employment contract, the employer’s refusal to renew based on “changes in workload” and its non-regular employment plan is justified.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that: the employer had repeatedly renewed the employment contract over a long period each year under the same working conditions; in that process, a legitimate expectation was formed on the part of the employee that the contract would continue; the employment contract and internal operating rules expressly provided that, in the event of changes in workload, the contract could be terminated or renewal could be refused; and the 2026 non-regular employment plan objectively showed that new hiring was unavoidable due to changes in workload.
On this basis, the panel recognized that the employee had a right to expect renewal of the employment contract, but at the same time held that there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew, as it was based on changes in workload and the employment plan presented by the employer.
The decision held that, even where an employee’s right to expect renewal of a fixed-term employment contract is recognized, a refusal to renew does not constitute unfair dismissal if the employer relies on objective managerial reasons such as a reduction or change in workload, and on internal rules consistent with those reasons.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where a fixed-term contract has been repeatedly renewed multiple times, a right to expect renewal may be recognized. However, this does not in itself guarantee automatic renewal or conversion to an indefinite-term contract. In particular, where the employment contract or operating rules contain provisions allowing for termination or non-renewal of the contract “in the event of changes in workload,” a refusal to renew may be justified if an actual decrease in workload or organizational restructuring is objectively demonstrated. Employees should therefore carefully review materials such as their own performance evaluations, workforce management plans, and hiring plans before deciding whether to file an application for relief.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when deciding whether to renew a fixed-term employee’s contract, it is important to clearly specify in the employment contract, rules of employment, and operating rules the concrete criteria and procedures for renewal, such as “changes in workload, business downsizing, and organizational restructuring.” Furthermore, where a reduction in workload or a need to reduce non-regular hiring actually arises, the employer should secure objective evidence—such as hiring plans and budget/workforce management data—so that it can demonstrate that the refusal to renew is not based merely on internal circumstances or arbitrary judgment.
This decision shows that, in the context of unfair dismissal, the Labor Relations Commission broadly recognizes fixed-term employees’ right to expect renewal, while at the same time acknowledging a relatively wide range of reasonable grounds for refusal to renew where such refusal is based on changes in workload and expressly stipulated rules. Both employees and employers should therefore continuously check whether “contract terms, internal rules, and actual workforce management” are aligned.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the employee had a right to expect renewal of the employment contract
Since the employer had repeatedly renewed the employment contract over a long period each year under the same working conditions, the employee was recognized as having a right to expect renewal of the employment contract.
(b) Whether there were reasonable grounds for refusal to renew
The employment contract and operating rules contained provisions stating that, if reasons arise due to changes in workload, the employer may terminate the employment contract or refuse to renew it. In addition, the 2026 non-regular employment plan showed that, due to changes in workload, new hiring was unavoidably necessary. Accordingly, there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the employee had a right to expect renewal of the employment contract
Since the employer had repeatedly renewed the employment contract over a long period each year under the same working conditions, the employee was recognized as having a right to expect renewal of the employment contract.
(b) Whether there were reasonable grounds for refusal to renew
The employment contract and operating rules contained provisions stating that, if reasons arise due to changes in workload, the employer may terminate the employment contract or refuse to renew it. In addition, the 2026 non-regular employment plan showed that, due to changes in workload, new hiring was unavoidably necessary. Accordingly, there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Refusal to Renew (C-Grade Performance Evaluation)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, right to expect renewal (non-regular employment plans based on changes in workload), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Refusal to Renew (C-Grade Performance Evaluation)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the right to expect renewal (non-regular employment plans based on changes in workload) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to the Right to Expect Renewal (Non-Regular Employment Plans Based on Changes in Workload).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “right to expect renewal (non-regular employment plans based on changes in workload).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 4 ○○○
Unfair Dismissal Relief Application · 26 February 2026 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a fixed-term employee was refused renewal of his/her employment contract upon its expiry and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the long-term, repeatedly renewed contractual relationship between the employer and the employee, as well as the circumstances surrounding the non-regular employment plan and changes in workload, to determine whether unfair dismissal had occurred.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a fixed-term employment relationship that has been repeatedly renewed over a long period, where the employee is recognized as having a right to expect renewal of the employment contract, the employer’s refusal to renew based on “changes in workload” and its non-regular employment plan is justified.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that: the employer had repeatedly renewed the employment contract over a long period each year under the same working conditions; in that process, a legitimate expectation was formed on the part of the employee that the contract would continue; the employment contract and internal operating rules expressly provided that, in the event of changes in workload, the contract could be terminated or renewal could be refused; and the 2026 non-regular employment plan objectively showed that new hiring was unavoidable due to changes in workload.
On this basis, the panel recognized that the employee had a right to expect renewal of the employment contract, but at the same time held that there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew, as it was based on changes in workload and the employment plan presented by the employer.
The decision held that, even where an employee’s right to expect renewal of a fixed-term employment contract is recognized, a refusal to renew does not constitute unfair dismissal if the employer relies on objective managerial reasons such as a reduction or change in workload, and on internal rules consistent with those reasons.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where a fixed-term contract has been repeatedly renewed multiple times, a right to expect renewal may be recognized. However, this does not in itself guarantee automatic renewal or conversion to an indefinite-term contract. In particular, where the employment contract or operating rules contain provisions allowing for termination or non-renewal of the contract “in the event of changes in workload,” a refusal to renew may be justified if an actual decrease in workload or organizational restructuring is objectively demonstrated. Employees should therefore carefully review materials such as their own performance evaluations, workforce management plans, and hiring plans before deciding whether to file an application for relief.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when deciding whether to renew a fixed-term employee’s contract, it is important to clearly specify in the employment contract, rules of employment, and operating rules the concrete criteria and procedures for renewal, such as “changes in workload, business downsizing, and organizational restructuring.” Furthermore, where a reduction in workload or a need to reduce non-regular hiring actually arises, the employer should secure objective evidence—such as hiring plans and budget/workforce management data—so that it can demonstrate that the refusal to renew is not based merely on internal circumstances or arbitrary judgment.
This decision shows that, in the context of unfair dismissal, the Labor Relations Commission broadly recognizes fixed-term employees’ right to expect renewal, while at the same time acknowledging a relatively wide range of reasonable grounds for refusal to renew where such refusal is based on changes in workload and expressly stipulated rules. Both employees and employers should therefore continuously check whether “contract terms, internal rules, and actual workforce management” are aligned.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the employee had a right to expect renewal of the employment contract
Since the employer had repeatedly renewed the employment contract over a long period each year under the same working conditions, the employee was recognized as having a right to expect renewal of the employment contract.
(b) Whether there were reasonable grounds for refusal to renew
The employment contract and operating rules contained provisions stating that, if reasons arise due to changes in workload, the employer may terminate the employment contract or refuse to renew it. In addition, the 2026 non-regular employment plan showed that, due to changes in workload, new hiring was unavoidably necessary. Accordingly, there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the employee had a right to expect renewal of the employment contract
Since the employer had repeatedly renewed the employment contract over a long period each year under the same working conditions, the employee was recognized as having a right to expect renewal of the employment contract.
(b) Whether there were reasonable grounds for refusal to renew
The employment contract and operating rules contained provisions stating that, if reasons arise due to changes in workload, the employer may terminate the employment contract or refuse to renew it. In addition, the 2026 non-regular employment plan showed that, due to changes in workload, new hiring was unavoidably necessary. Accordingly, there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Refusal to Renew (C-Grade Performance Evaluation)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, right to expect renewal (non-regular employment plans based on changes in workload), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Refusal to Renew (C-Grade Performance Evaluation)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the right to expect renewal (non-regular employment plans based on changes in workload) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to the Right to Expect Renewal (Non-Regular Employment Plans Based on Changes in Workload).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
