Corporate trends / Performance record
Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (On-Site Workers During Winter Construction Suspension): Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 367)
- Date2026/04/12 04:12
- Read 164
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (on-site workers during winter construction suspension).”
Decision body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9080 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The last employment contract signed by the worker specified the employment period as 1 December 2025 to 12 December 2025, and on 12 November 2025, one month prior, the employer posted a notice stating, “Due to insufficient work volume and the client’s inability to proceed with construction during the winter season, construction will be suspended as of 12 December 2025.”
1. Legal Implications
This article examines how the Labor Relations Commission assesses a fixed-term worker’s legitimate expectation of renewal through a case in which the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed whether an unfair dismissal had occurred. As legitimate expectation of renewal is a frequently arising issue in unfair dismissal disputes, we summarize which factors the Commission focuses on and share them together with the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&. We hope this will serve as a reference in similar redundancy or contract-expiry issues.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The worker had been employed at a construction site under fixed-term employment contracts. The last contract clearly specified the employment period as from 1 December 2025 to 12 December 2025. On 12 November 2025, one month prior, the employer posted a notice stating, “Due to insufficient work volume and the client’s inability to proceed with construction during the winter season, construction will be suspended as of 12 December 2025,” and the worker was aware of this.
Even after the contract period expired, some workers continued finishing work at the site from 15 December to 24 December 2025. The worker in question also reported to work on 15 December and performed the same work as before, but was told not to come in from the next day. Thereafter, from 26 December 2025, a new team organized by a new site manager was deployed and work resumed. The worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming that the refusal to renew his contract constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issue Summary
The issue in this case is whether a fixed-term worker whose contract period is expressly stated, and who was aware of the construction suspension notice, can nonetheless be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract (legitimate expectation of renewal) based on circumstances such as participation in finishing work by some workers after expiry of the contract period and the deployment of a new team, and further, whether the refusal to renew constitutes an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the worker’s last employment contract clearly stated the employment period as from 1 December 2025 to 12 December 2025; that the employer had posted, one month earlier, a construction suspension notice, and the worker was aware of the expiry of the period and the end of the construction; and that neither the work rules nor the employment contract contained any provision to the effect that “the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions” or any stipulation of renewal requirements or procedures.
In light of these factors, the panel held that the mere facts that some workers performed finishing work from 15 December to 24 December after expiry of the contract period, that the worker himself reported to work on 15 December and performed the same work as before, and that a new team organized by a new site manager was deployed from 26 December, were insufficient to find that a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be renewed had been formed on the part of the worker.
The panel determined that the dismissal in this case constituted automatic retirement due to expiry of the employment contract period, and that it was difficult to view the employment period as having been tacitly renewed. Accordingly, it held that the dismissal was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Where the employment contract specifies a fixed term and there is no explicit provision such as “re-employment upon satisfaction of certain conditions” in the work rules, collective agreement, or internal guidelines, it is difficult to have a legitimate expectation of renewal recognized solely on the basis of past repeated contracts, additional work performed by some colleagues, or staffing needs at the site. In particular, where, as in this case, the employer has given prior notice of the contract end date through a construction suspension notice, mere short-term participation in finishing work after expiry of the contract period may be insufficient to support a claim of unfair dismissal.
Therefore, if you are a fixed-term worker seeking to assert a legitimate expectation of renewal, it is important to secure in advance objective materials such as: established practices of re-contracting; rules specifying renewal criteria; documents or notices stating that “absent special circumstances, the contract will be renewed”; and actual practices of re-contracting for workers in comparable positions.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is helpful for dispute prevention to clearly state in the fixed-term employment contract the contract period and language such as “the employment contract automatically terminates upon expiry of the period,” and to give prior notice of reasons for contract termination, such as reduced construction volume or winter construction suspension, so that workers are aware of them. In addition, work rules, collective agreements, and operational guidelines should be reviewed to avoid unnecessarily listing renewal requirements or procedures in a way that may give the impression of “automatic renewal,” and where only some personnel are deployed for short-term finishing work depending on staffing needs, the temporary nature of such work and its end date should be clearly communicated.
If, in the course of managing fixed-term personnel, practices of re-contracting or conversion accumulate, there is a greater likelihood that the courts will interpret this as supporting a legitimate expectation of renewal. Accordingly, it is important to substantively review renewal decisions each time based on staffing needs, business necessity, and performance evaluations, and to maintain a certain number of cases in which employment ends upon contract expiry, in order to reduce future risks of unfair dismissal disputes.
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The last employment contract signed by the worker specified the employment period as 1 December 2025 to 12 December 2025, and on 12 November 2025, one month prior, the employer posted a notice stating, “Due to insufficient work volume and the client’s inability to proceed with construction during the winter season, construction will be suspended as of 12 December 2025,” of which the worker was also aware. The employer’s work rules and the employment contract contained no provision to the effect that “the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions.”
Even after expiry of the contract period, some workers continued finishing work at the site from 15 December to 24 December 2025, and from 26 December 2025, a new team organized by a new site manager was separately deployed and work resumed. Although the worker in question also reported to work for one day on 15 December 2025 (and was told not to come in from the next day) and performed the same work as before, these facts alone were insufficient to find that the worker had a legitimate expectation of renewal, and it was difficult to view the employment period as having been tacitly renewed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The last employment contract signed by the worker specified the employment period as 1 December 2025 to 12 December 2025, and on 12 November 2025, one month prior, the employer posted a notice stating, “Due to insufficient work volume and the client’s inability to proceed with construction during the winter season, construction will be suspended as of 12 December 2025,” of which the worker was also aware. The employer’s work rules and the employment contract contained no provision to the effect that “the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions.”
Even after expiry of the contract period, some workers continued finishing work at the site from 15 December to 24 December 2025, and from 26 December 2025, a new team organized by a new site manager was separately deployed and work resumed. Although the worker in question also reported to work for one day on 15 December 2025 (and was told not to come in from the next day) and performed the same work as before, these facts alone were insufficient to find that the worker had a legitimate expectation of renewal, and it was difficult to view the employment period as having been tacitly renewed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Existence of Dismissal (Job Posting for Daily Workers)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (on-site workers during winter construction suspension), 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, “Existence of Dismissal (Job Posting for Daily Workers) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (on-site workers during winter construction suspension) can be viewed together in the “Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (On-Site Workers During Winter Construction Suspension) – Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (on-site workers during winter construction suspension).”
Decision body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9080 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The last employment contract signed by the worker specified the employment period as 1 December 2025 to 12 December 2025, and on 12 November 2025, one month prior, the employer posted a notice stating, “Due to insufficient work volume and the client’s inability to proceed with construction during the winter season, construction will be suspended as of 12 December 2025.”
1. Legal Implications
This article examines how the Labor Relations Commission assesses a fixed-term worker’s legitimate expectation of renewal through a case in which the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed whether an unfair dismissal had occurred. As legitimate expectation of renewal is a frequently arising issue in unfair dismissal disputes, we summarize which factors the Commission focuses on and share them together with the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&. We hope this will serve as a reference in similar redundancy or contract-expiry issues.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The worker had been employed at a construction site under fixed-term employment contracts. The last contract clearly specified the employment period as from 1 December 2025 to 12 December 2025. On 12 November 2025, one month prior, the employer posted a notice stating, “Due to insufficient work volume and the client’s inability to proceed with construction during the winter season, construction will be suspended as of 12 December 2025,” and the worker was aware of this.
Even after the contract period expired, some workers continued finishing work at the site from 15 December to 24 December 2025. The worker in question also reported to work on 15 December and performed the same work as before, but was told not to come in from the next day. Thereafter, from 26 December 2025, a new team organized by a new site manager was deployed and work resumed. The worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming that the refusal to renew his contract constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issue Summary
The issue in this case is whether a fixed-term worker whose contract period is expressly stated, and who was aware of the construction suspension notice, can nonetheless be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract (legitimate expectation of renewal) based on circumstances such as participation in finishing work by some workers after expiry of the contract period and the deployment of a new team, and further, whether the refusal to renew constitutes an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the worker’s last employment contract clearly stated the employment period as from 1 December 2025 to 12 December 2025; that the employer had posted, one month earlier, a construction suspension notice, and the worker was aware of the expiry of the period and the end of the construction; and that neither the work rules nor the employment contract contained any provision to the effect that “the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions” or any stipulation of renewal requirements or procedures.
In light of these factors, the panel held that the mere facts that some workers performed finishing work from 15 December to 24 December after expiry of the contract period, that the worker himself reported to work on 15 December and performed the same work as before, and that a new team organized by a new site manager was deployed from 26 December, were insufficient to find that a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be renewed had been formed on the part of the worker.
The panel determined that the dismissal in this case constituted automatic retirement due to expiry of the employment contract period, and that it was difficult to view the employment period as having been tacitly renewed. Accordingly, it held that the dismissal was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Where the employment contract specifies a fixed term and there is no explicit provision such as “re-employment upon satisfaction of certain conditions” in the work rules, collective agreement, or internal guidelines, it is difficult to have a legitimate expectation of renewal recognized solely on the basis of past repeated contracts, additional work performed by some colleagues, or staffing needs at the site. In particular, where, as in this case, the employer has given prior notice of the contract end date through a construction suspension notice, mere short-term participation in finishing work after expiry of the contract period may be insufficient to support a claim of unfair dismissal.
Therefore, if you are a fixed-term worker seeking to assert a legitimate expectation of renewal, it is important to secure in advance objective materials such as: established practices of re-contracting; rules specifying renewal criteria; documents or notices stating that “absent special circumstances, the contract will be renewed”; and actual practices of re-contracting for workers in comparable positions.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is helpful for dispute prevention to clearly state in the fixed-term employment contract the contract period and language such as “the employment contract automatically terminates upon expiry of the period,” and to give prior notice of reasons for contract termination, such as reduced construction volume or winter construction suspension, so that workers are aware of them. In addition, work rules, collective agreements, and operational guidelines should be reviewed to avoid unnecessarily listing renewal requirements or procedures in a way that may give the impression of “automatic renewal,” and where only some personnel are deployed for short-term finishing work depending on staffing needs, the temporary nature of such work and its end date should be clearly communicated.
If, in the course of managing fixed-term personnel, practices of re-contracting or conversion accumulate, there is a greater likelihood that the courts will interpret this as supporting a legitimate expectation of renewal. Accordingly, it is important to substantively review renewal decisions each time based on staffing needs, business necessity, and performance evaluations, and to maintain a certain number of cases in which employment ends upon contract expiry, in order to reduce future risks of unfair dismissal disputes.
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The last employment contract signed by the worker specified the employment period as 1 December 2025 to 12 December 2025, and on 12 November 2025, one month prior, the employer posted a notice stating, “Due to insufficient work volume and the client’s inability to proceed with construction during the winter season, construction will be suspended as of 12 December 2025,” of which the worker was also aware. The employer’s work rules and the employment contract contained no provision to the effect that “the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions.”
Even after expiry of the contract period, some workers continued finishing work at the site from 15 December to 24 December 2025, and from 26 December 2025, a new team organized by a new site manager was separately deployed and work resumed. Although the worker in question also reported to work for one day on 15 December 2025 (and was told not to come in from the next day) and performed the same work as before, these facts alone were insufficient to find that the worker had a legitimate expectation of renewal, and it was difficult to view the employment period as having been tacitly renewed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The last employment contract signed by the worker specified the employment period as 1 December 2025 to 12 December 2025, and on 12 November 2025, one month prior, the employer posted a notice stating, “Due to insufficient work volume and the client’s inability to proceed with construction during the winter season, construction will be suspended as of 12 December 2025,” of which the worker was also aware. The employer’s work rules and the employment contract contained no provision to the effect that “the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions.”
Even after expiry of the contract period, some workers continued finishing work at the site from 15 December to 24 December 2025, and from 26 December 2025, a new team organized by a new site manager was separately deployed and work resumed. Although the worker in question also reported to work for one day on 15 December 2025 (and was told not to come in from the next day) and performed the same work as before, these facts alone were insufficient to find that the worker had a legitimate expectation of renewal, and it was difficult to view the employment period as having been tacitly renewed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Existence of Dismissal (Job Posting for Daily Workers)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (on-site workers during winter construction suspension), 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, “Existence of Dismissal (Job Posting for Daily Workers) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (on-site workers during winter construction suspension) can be viewed together in the “Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (On-Site Workers During Winter Construction Suspension) – Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
