Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Daily-Paid Day Laborer)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 356)
- Date2026/04/08 04:04
- Read 183
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of interest in relief (daily-paid day laborer).”
Adjudicating body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9263 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Taking into account that the employer posted a recruitment notice for day laborers on the condition of daily wage payment, that the worker saw this notice and joined the company on the understanding that he would be paid a daily wage, and that his wages were paid by multiplying the daily rate by the actual number of days worked, it is reasonable to regard the worker as a day laborer who entered into an employment contract on a one‑day basis and whose contract was terminated upon completion of work each day. Accordingly, the employment relationship between the parties should be viewed as having ended upon the expiration of each one‑day employment contract period, and therefore …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a daily‑paid day laborer claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that there was no remaining interest in relief. This type of case is frequently consulted on at Labor Law Firm Law&, and although it may outwardly appear to be an unfair dismissal, it is legally characterized as a “expiration of the employment contract period.”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a day laborer paid on a daily basis is no longer called in to work by the employer, there exists a continuing employment relationship sufficient to contest the situation as an unfair dismissal, and whether there remains any interest in relief that would allow the worker to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employer had posted a recruitment notice for day laborers on the condition of daily wage payment, that the worker joined the company on that basis and had been paid wages calculated as the number of days actually worked multiplied by the daily rate, and that, in light of this working arrangement, it was clear that employment contracts were being concluded and terminated on a one‑day basis.
The panel therefore found it reasonable to regard the employment relationship between the parties as a day‑labor relationship in which the employment contract automatically terminated at the end of each working day.
The “dismissal” at issue in this case should thus be viewed not as a separate dismissal, but as the termination of the employment relationship by expiration of each one‑day employment contract period. By the time the worker filed the application for remedy, the employment relationship with the employer had already ended and the worker was no longer in the status of an employee. As a result, the panel held that there was no interest in relief to be protected by an unfair dismissal remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even if a worker is described as a day laborer or paid on a daily basis, if in reality the worker reports to work continuously and provides labor under the employer’s direction and supervision, the mere label of “daily‑paid” does not necessarily mean that the worker will be legally treated as a day laborer. However, where, as in this case, the recruitment notice, wage payment method, and actual working pattern as a whole are structured on a one‑day contract basis, the Labor Relations Commission may regard the situation as “expiration of the contract period,” rather than as a redundancy dismissal or ordinary dismissal, and may deny the existence of any interest in relief.
Accordingly, workers in similar situations should secure in advance materials that support the existence of continuous employment, such as: what type of contract was concluded at the time of hiring; whether there was a practice of repeated renewal or regular assignment; and whether the employer in substance treated the worker as a regular employee.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if day laborers or short‑term workers are used but, in actual operation, their work is close to regular and continuous employment while only the formal label of “daily‑paid” is maintained, employers should be aware that, in the event of a future dispute, such workers may claim regular employee status and allege unfair dismissal. As in this case, only where it is clearly evident from the recruitment notice, wage calculation method, attendance structure, etc. that the arrangement is based on one‑day contracts, is it highly likely that the argument of extinction of interest in relief will be accepted as such.
Furthermore, where mass use and termination of day laborers is contemplated in the context of redundancy or workforce adjustment, employers should, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, conduct a prior review as to whether the actual working patterns of individual workers have effectively come to resemble fixed‑term or open‑ended employment.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account that the employer posted a recruitment notice for day laborers on the condition of daily wage payment, that the worker saw this notice and joined the company on the understanding that he would be paid a daily wage, and that his wages were paid by multiplying the daily rate by the actual number of days worked, it is reasonable to regard the worker as a day laborer who entered into an employment contract on a one‑day basis and whose contract was terminated upon completion of work each day. Accordingly, the employment relationship between the parties ended upon the expiration of each one‑day employment contract period, and by the time the worker filed the application for remedy, the employment relationship with the employer had already ended and the worker was no longer in the status of an employee. It is therefore determined that there is no interest in relief.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Taking into account that the employer posted a recruitment notice for day laborers on the condition of daily wage payment, that the worker saw this notice and joined the company on the understanding that he would be paid a daily wage, and that his wages were paid by multiplying the daily rate by the actual number of days worked, it is reasonable to regard the worker as a day laborer who entered into an employment contract on a one‑day basis and whose contract was terminated upon completion of work each day. Accordingly, the employment relationship between the parties ended upon the expiration of each one‑day employment contract period, and by the time the worker filed the application for remedy, the employment relationship with the employer had already ended and the worker was no longer in the status of an employee. It is therefore determined that there is no interest in relief. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark by Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of interest in relief (daily‑paid day laborer), 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, “‘Less Than Five Regular Employees (One Employee Enrolled in Employment Insurance)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of interest in relief (daily‑paid day laborer) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Interest in Relief (Daily‑Paid Day Laborer).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of interest in relief (daily-paid day laborer).”
Adjudicating body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9263 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Taking into account that the employer posted a recruitment notice for day laborers on the condition of daily wage payment, that the worker saw this notice and joined the company on the understanding that he would be paid a daily wage, and that his wages were paid by multiplying the daily rate by the actual number of days worked, it is reasonable to regard the worker as a day laborer who entered into an employment contract on a one‑day basis and whose contract was terminated upon completion of work each day. Accordingly, the employment relationship between the parties should be viewed as having ended upon the expiration of each one‑day employment contract period, and therefore …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a daily‑paid day laborer claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that there was no remaining interest in relief. This type of case is frequently consulted on at Labor Law Firm Law&, and although it may outwardly appear to be an unfair dismissal, it is legally characterized as a “expiration of the employment contract period.”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a day laborer paid on a daily basis is no longer called in to work by the employer, there exists a continuing employment relationship sufficient to contest the situation as an unfair dismissal, and whether there remains any interest in relief that would allow the worker to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employer had posted a recruitment notice for day laborers on the condition of daily wage payment, that the worker joined the company on that basis and had been paid wages calculated as the number of days actually worked multiplied by the daily rate, and that, in light of this working arrangement, it was clear that employment contracts were being concluded and terminated on a one‑day basis.
The panel therefore found it reasonable to regard the employment relationship between the parties as a day‑labor relationship in which the employment contract automatically terminated at the end of each working day.
The “dismissal” at issue in this case should thus be viewed not as a separate dismissal, but as the termination of the employment relationship by expiration of each one‑day employment contract period. By the time the worker filed the application for remedy, the employment relationship with the employer had already ended and the worker was no longer in the status of an employee. As a result, the panel held that there was no interest in relief to be protected by an unfair dismissal remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even if a worker is described as a day laborer or paid on a daily basis, if in reality the worker reports to work continuously and provides labor under the employer’s direction and supervision, the mere label of “daily‑paid” does not necessarily mean that the worker will be legally treated as a day laborer. However, where, as in this case, the recruitment notice, wage payment method, and actual working pattern as a whole are structured on a one‑day contract basis, the Labor Relations Commission may regard the situation as “expiration of the contract period,” rather than as a redundancy dismissal or ordinary dismissal, and may deny the existence of any interest in relief.
Accordingly, workers in similar situations should secure in advance materials that support the existence of continuous employment, such as: what type of contract was concluded at the time of hiring; whether there was a practice of repeated renewal or regular assignment; and whether the employer in substance treated the worker as a regular employee.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if day laborers or short‑term workers are used but, in actual operation, their work is close to regular and continuous employment while only the formal label of “daily‑paid” is maintained, employers should be aware that, in the event of a future dispute, such workers may claim regular employee status and allege unfair dismissal. As in this case, only where it is clearly evident from the recruitment notice, wage calculation method, attendance structure, etc. that the arrangement is based on one‑day contracts, is it highly likely that the argument of extinction of interest in relief will be accepted as such.
Furthermore, where mass use and termination of day laborers is contemplated in the context of redundancy or workforce adjustment, employers should, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, conduct a prior review as to whether the actual working patterns of individual workers have effectively come to resemble fixed‑term or open‑ended employment.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account that the employer posted a recruitment notice for day laborers on the condition of daily wage payment, that the worker saw this notice and joined the company on the understanding that he would be paid a daily wage, and that his wages were paid by multiplying the daily rate by the actual number of days worked, it is reasonable to regard the worker as a day laborer who entered into an employment contract on a one‑day basis and whose contract was terminated upon completion of work each day. Accordingly, the employment relationship between the parties ended upon the expiration of each one‑day employment contract period, and by the time the worker filed the application for remedy, the employment relationship with the employer had already ended and the worker was no longer in the status of an employee. It is therefore determined that there is no interest in relief.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Taking into account that the employer posted a recruitment notice for day laborers on the condition of daily wage payment, that the worker saw this notice and joined the company on the understanding that he would be paid a daily wage, and that his wages were paid by multiplying the daily rate by the actual number of days worked, it is reasonable to regard the worker as a day laborer who entered into an employment contract on a one‑day basis and whose contract was terminated upon completion of work each day. Accordingly, the employment relationship between the parties ended upon the expiration of each one‑day employment contract period, and by the time the worker filed the application for remedy, the employment relationship with the employer had already ended and the worker was no longer in the status of an employee. It is therefore determined that there is no interest in relief. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark by Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of interest in relief (daily‑paid day laborer), 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, “‘Less Than Five Regular Employees (One Employee Enrolled in Employment Insurance)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of interest in relief (daily‑paid day laborer) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Interest in Relief (Daily‑Paid Day Laborer).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
