Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Existence of Dismissal (Daily Worker Recruitment Notice)” (Unfair Dismissal 366)
- Date2026/04/12 04:08
- Read 164
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (daily worker recruitment notice).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10074 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the worker in this case was a daily worker. The worker argued that he believed he was a worker who could continue working, but: (i) the employer specified the working period as one day in the recruitment notice and stipulated daily wage payment; (ii) the submitted employment contract form stated that the employment relationship is established on a one‑day basis; and (iii) there was no evidence that the parties had reached any separate agreement on long‑term employment. In light of these factors, the employment relationship was found to be one that is established and terminates on a daily basis…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that he was a worker who could continue working, but that the employer unilaterally told him to stop coming to work, thereby unfairly dismissing him. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined, based on objective materials such as the recruitment notice and the employment contract form, whether this worker was a “daily worker,” and then reviewed whether a remedy for unfair dismissal was available.
The issue in this case was:
“Where the recruitment notice and contract type are set on a one‑day basis, can the worker challenge unfair dismissal solely on the ground that he personally expected continuous employment?”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The core issue in this case was whether, where the employer hired the worker specifying “today only” and paid a daily wage, the employment relationship constituted a daily employment relationship that automatically terminates each day, or whether, in substance, it was a fixed‑term or open‑ended employment relationship with continuous work anticipated. Furthermore, where a daily employment relationship is recognized, the question arose whether the employer’s failure to provide further work after the end of each day’s work could be regarded as a “dismissal,” and thus be subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that: the employer specified the working period as “one day” in the recruitment notice and clearly stated that wages would be paid on a daily basis; the submitted employment contract form was structured so that the employment relationship is established and terminates on a one‑day basis; and there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the parties had reached any separate agreement on long‑term or continuous employment.
Accordingly, it held that the worker’s actual working pattern corresponded to a typical daily employment relationship that is established and terminates on a one‑day basis.
The dismissal measure in this case was therefore found to be nothing more than the natural consequence of the employment relationship terminating each day, resulting in no further provision of labor, and it was difficult to recognize the existence of a “dismissal” in which the employer unilaterally excluded a worker who was in an ongoing employment relationship. On this basis, the application was determined to be unfounded.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, it is essential to carefully check how the working period is stated in the recruitment notice and employment contract: whether it is “daily employment on a one‑day basis,” a fixed‑term contract for a specified period, or employment with no fixed term. Even if daily contracts have been repeatedly concluded, if you cannot secure evidence proving an express or implied agreement or practice of long‑term or continuous employment (such as continuous work schedules, repeated contracts, or HR/payroll system management identical to that of regular employees), the Labor Relations Commission is likely to find that no dismissal occurred at all, making it difficult to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal.
In particular, to allege unfair dismissal, you must first prove that “the employment relationship was continuing” and that “it was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent.” A mere subjective expectation that “I thought I would keep working” is insufficient.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where you genuinely intend to utilize workers as daily employees, you should operate the recruitment notice, employment contract, and wage payment method consistently in a one‑day‑based structure. Conversely, if you in substance assign workers to regular and continuous duties while maintaining only the form of daily employment, there is a risk that, through repeated renewals, a “continuous employment relationship” or a “legitimate expectation of renewal” will be recognized, triggering the application of legal principles on dismissal and redundancy (collective dismissal).
In addition, because the applicable legal norms differ depending on the manner in which the employment relationship ends—such as statutory restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, written notice of reasons for dismissal, and requirements for redundancy—you should, in advance, review with legal counsel and organize your HR practices as to whether the case involves “automatic extinction” (e.g., mandatory retirement, expiry of a fixed‑term contract, or natural termination of daily employment) or a “dismissal” based on the employer’s unilateral intention.
(ⓒ2026copyright. Labor Attorney Young‑Seop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker in this case was a daily worker
The worker argued that he believed he was a worker who could continue working, but: (i) the employer specified the working period as one day in the recruitment notice and stipulated daily wage payment; (ii) the submitted employment contract form stated that the employment relationship is established on a one‑day basis; and (iii) there was no evidence that the parties had reached any separate agreement on long‑term employment. In light of these factors, the employment relationship is deemed to be a daily employment relationship that is established and terminates on a one‑day basis. Accordingly, as the employment relationship naturally terminated, it is difficult to recognize the existence of a dismissal.
B. Existence and Justifiability of Dismissal
Since the worker is a daily worker, there is no need to further examine the existence of dismissal or its justifiability.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the worker in this case was a daily worker
The worker argued that he believed he was a worker who could continue working, but: (i) the employer specified the working period as one day in the recruitment notice and stipulated daily wage payment; (ii) the submitted employment contract form stated that the employment relationship is established on a one‑day basis; and (iii) there was no evidence that the parties had reached any separate agreement on long‑term employment. In light of these factors, the employment relationship is deemed to be a daily employment relationship that is established and terminates on a one‑day basis. Accordingly, as the employment relationship naturally terminated, it is difficult to recognize the existence of a dismissal.
B. Existence and Justifiability of Dismissal
Since the worker is a daily worker, there is no need to further examine the existence of dismissal or its justifiability. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Probationary Dismissal (Conversion to Regular Position)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (daily worker recruitment notice), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Probationary Dismissal (Conversion to Regular Position),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (daily worker recruitment notice) can be viewed together on the “Existence of Dismissal (Daily Worker Recruitment Notice) Related Decisions List” page.
※ 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 (daily worker recruitment notice).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10074 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the worker in this case was a daily worker. The worker argued that he believed he was a worker who could continue working, but: (i) the employer specified the working period as one day in the recruitment notice and stipulated daily wage payment; (ii) the submitted employment contract form stated that the employment relationship is established on a one‑day basis; and (iii) there was no evidence that the parties had reached any separate agreement on long‑term employment. In light of these factors, the employment relationship was found to be one that is established and terminates on a daily basis…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that he was a worker who could continue working, but that the employer unilaterally told him to stop coming to work, thereby unfairly dismissing him. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined, based on objective materials such as the recruitment notice and the employment contract form, whether this worker was a “daily worker,” and then reviewed whether a remedy for unfair dismissal was available.
The issue in this case was:
“Where the recruitment notice and contract type are set on a one‑day basis, can the worker challenge unfair dismissal solely on the ground that he personally expected continuous employment?”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The core issue in this case was whether, where the employer hired the worker specifying “today only” and paid a daily wage, the employment relationship constituted a daily employment relationship that automatically terminates each day, or whether, in substance, it was a fixed‑term or open‑ended employment relationship with continuous work anticipated. Furthermore, where a daily employment relationship is recognized, the question arose whether the employer’s failure to provide further work after the end of each day’s work could be regarded as a “dismissal,” and thus be subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that: the employer specified the working period as “one day” in the recruitment notice and clearly stated that wages would be paid on a daily basis; the submitted employment contract form was structured so that the employment relationship is established and terminates on a one‑day basis; and there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the parties had reached any separate agreement on long‑term or continuous employment.
Accordingly, it held that the worker’s actual working pattern corresponded to a typical daily employment relationship that is established and terminates on a one‑day basis.
The dismissal measure in this case was therefore found to be nothing more than the natural consequence of the employment relationship terminating each day, resulting in no further provision of labor, and it was difficult to recognize the existence of a “dismissal” in which the employer unilaterally excluded a worker who was in an ongoing employment relationship. On this basis, the application was determined to be unfounded.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, it is essential to carefully check how the working period is stated in the recruitment notice and employment contract: whether it is “daily employment on a one‑day basis,” a fixed‑term contract for a specified period, or employment with no fixed term. Even if daily contracts have been repeatedly concluded, if you cannot secure evidence proving an express or implied agreement or practice of long‑term or continuous employment (such as continuous work schedules, repeated contracts, or HR/payroll system management identical to that of regular employees), the Labor Relations Commission is likely to find that no dismissal occurred at all, making it difficult to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal.
In particular, to allege unfair dismissal, you must first prove that “the employment relationship was continuing” and that “it was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent.” A mere subjective expectation that “I thought I would keep working” is insufficient.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where you genuinely intend to utilize workers as daily employees, you should operate the recruitment notice, employment contract, and wage payment method consistently in a one‑day‑based structure. Conversely, if you in substance assign workers to regular and continuous duties while maintaining only the form of daily employment, there is a risk that, through repeated renewals, a “continuous employment relationship” or a “legitimate expectation of renewal” will be recognized, triggering the application of legal principles on dismissal and redundancy (collective dismissal).
In addition, because the applicable legal norms differ depending on the manner in which the employment relationship ends—such as statutory restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, written notice of reasons for dismissal, and requirements for redundancy—you should, in advance, review with legal counsel and organize your HR practices as to whether the case involves “automatic extinction” (e.g., mandatory retirement, expiry of a fixed‑term contract, or natural termination of daily employment) or a “dismissal” based on the employer’s unilateral intention.
(ⓒ2026copyright. Labor Attorney Young‑Seop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker in this case was a daily worker
The worker argued that he believed he was a worker who could continue working, but: (i) the employer specified the working period as one day in the recruitment notice and stipulated daily wage payment; (ii) the submitted employment contract form stated that the employment relationship is established on a one‑day basis; and (iii) there was no evidence that the parties had reached any separate agreement on long‑term employment. In light of these factors, the employment relationship is deemed to be a daily employment relationship that is established and terminates on a one‑day basis. Accordingly, as the employment relationship naturally terminated, it is difficult to recognize the existence of a dismissal.
B. Existence and Justifiability of Dismissal
Since the worker is a daily worker, there is no need to further examine the existence of dismissal or its justifiability.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the worker in this case was a daily worker
The worker argued that he believed he was a worker who could continue working, but: (i) the employer specified the working period as one day in the recruitment notice and stipulated daily wage payment; (ii) the submitted employment contract form stated that the employment relationship is established on a one‑day basis; and (iii) there was no evidence that the parties had reached any separate agreement on long‑term employment. In light of these factors, the employment relationship is deemed to be a daily employment relationship that is established and terminates on a one‑day basis. Accordingly, as the employment relationship naturally terminated, it is difficult to recognize the existence of a dismissal.
B. Existence and Justifiability of Dismissal
Since the worker is a daily worker, there is no need to further examine the existence of dismissal or its justifiability. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Probationary Dismissal (Conversion to Regular Position)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (daily worker recruitment notice), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Probationary Dismissal (Conversion to Regular Position),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (daily worker recruitment notice) can be viewed together on the “Existence of Dismissal (Daily Worker Recruitment Notice) Related Decisions List” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
