Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Denial of Employee Status (Transfer Processing of Union Executive)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 368)
- Date2026/04/13 04:04
- Read 173
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (transfer processing of union executive).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal 1150 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.19 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the worker is an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
The worker qualifies as a “worker” under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (the “Trade Union Act”), but it is difficult to regard him/her as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, he/she lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the applicant, who had been serving as a union executive, was subjected by the employer to a refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (processed as a transfer). The applicant then filed an application with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission seeking remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices.
The Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the applicant’s status constituted that of an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and whether the measures in question amounted to an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment or employer domination/interference.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are:
“Where a labor provider qualifies as a worker under the Trade Union Act but is difficult to regard as an employee under the Labor Standards Act,
(i) whether measures such as refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (transfer processing) are subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and
(ii) whether such measures simultaneously constitute an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment and/or domination and interference.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel held that, although the applicant qualifies as a worker under the Trade Union Act, it is difficult to regard him/her as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore denied standing as a proper party to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
The refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (transfer processing) imposed on the worker were, in form, measures taken in response to workplace bullying. However, considering comprehensively that the duration of such measures was excessively long and disproportionate, that they lacked fairness, that the employer did not consider any alternative measures, and that the applicant had been in ongoing conflict with the employer over collective bargaining, the Commission determined that the measures constituted an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment.
On the other hand, the Commission found insufficient evidence to conclude that the measures were taken with the intention of interfering with or obstructing the autonomous operation and activities of the labor union, or of encouraging withdrawal from or division within the union. Accordingly, it held that the measures did not constitute an unfair labor practice in the form of domination and interference.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even if a worker qualifies as a worker under the Trade Union Act, he or she cannot file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission unless employee status under the Labor Standards Act is recognized. It is therefore necessary to first examine whether one’s contractual form and the actual manner of providing labor conform to the criteria used to determine employee status under the Labor Standards Act.
However, even where one is not recognized as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, if one suffers clearly unreasonable and substantially disadvantageous treatment from the employer—such as long-term refusal of work assignment or transfer processing—based on union activities or conflicts arising from collective bargaining, it should be borne in mind that an application for remedy for unfair labor practices (disadvantageous treatment) under the Trade Union Act may still be possible.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, it is necessary not to conclude that a particular labor provider lacks employee status under the Labor Standards Act solely on the basis of the contractual form, but rather to review comprehensively all elements of subordination, including actual direction and supervision of work, working hours, and method of remuneration.
In addition, when taking personnel measures such as refusal of work assignment or transfer processing under the pretext of addressing workplace bullying or managing conflicts, employers should design the duration, intensity, and fairness of such measures in a reasonable manner and keep records showing that alternative measures were considered. Otherwise, there is a high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find such measures to constitute an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment.
This decision on unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices clearly illustrates that the scope of “worker” under the Trade Union Act differs from that of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act, and that, irrespective of whether employee status is recognized, an employer’s personnel measures may still be evaluated as unfair labor practices. It should therefore serve as a reference in responding to similar cases.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker is an employee under the Labor Standards Act
The worker qualifies as a worker under the Trade Union Act, but it is difficult to regard him/her as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, he/she lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. As there is no practical benefit in determining whether the termination of contract (transfer processing), premised on the worker’s status as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, constitutes an unfair dismissal or is otherwise justified, the Commission did not rule on that point.
B. Whether the refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (transfer processing) constitute unfair labor practices in the form of disadvantageous treatment and domination/interference
The refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (transfer processing) imposed on the worker were measures taken in response to the worker’s workplace bullying. However, considering comprehensively that the duration of such measures was excessively long and disproportionate, that they lacked fairness, that the employer did not consider any alternative measures, and that the worker had been in ongoing conflict with the employer over collective bargaining, the Commission held that they constituted an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment.
At the same time, it found it difficult to conclude that the employer intended to interfere with or obstruct the autonomous operation and activities of the labor union, or to encourage withdrawal from or division within the union. Accordingly, the measures did not constitute an unfair labor practice in the form of domination and interference.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the worker is an employee under the Labor Standards Act
The worker qualifies as a worker under the Trade Union Act, but it is difficult to regard him/her as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, he/she lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. As there is no practical benefit in determining whether the termination of contract (transfer processing), premised on the worker’s status as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, constitutes an unfair dismissal or is otherwise justified, the Commission did not rule on that point.
B. Whether the refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (transfer processing) constitute unfair labor practices in the form of disadvantageous treatment and domination/interference
The refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (transfer processing) imposed on the worker were measures taken in response to the worker’s workplace bullying. However, considering comprehensively that the duration of such measures was excessively long and disproportionate, that they lacked fairness, that the employer did not consider any alternative measures, and that the worker had been in ongoing conflict with the employer over collective bargaining, the Commission held that they constituted an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment.
At the same time, it found it difficult to conclude that the employer intended to interfere with or obstruct the autonomous operation and activities of the labor union, or to encourage withdrawal from or division within the union. Accordingly, the measures did not constitute an unfair labor practice in the form of domination and interference. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (transfer processing of union executive), workplace bullying, 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, “‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (On-Site Workers During Winter Construction Suspension)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to denial of employee status (transfer processing of union executive) at the “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Transfer Processing of Union Executive).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (transfer processing of union executive).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal 1150 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.19 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the worker is an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
The worker qualifies as a “worker” under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (the “Trade Union Act”), but it is difficult to regard him/her as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, he/she lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the applicant, who had been serving as a union executive, was subjected by the employer to a refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (processed as a transfer). The applicant then filed an application with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission seeking remedies for unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices.
The Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the applicant’s status constituted that of an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and whether the measures in question amounted to an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment or employer domination/interference.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are:
“Where a labor provider qualifies as a worker under the Trade Union Act but is difficult to regard as an employee under the Labor Standards Act,
(i) whether measures such as refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (transfer processing) are subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and
(ii) whether such measures simultaneously constitute an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment and/or domination and interference.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel held that, although the applicant qualifies as a worker under the Trade Union Act, it is difficult to regard him/her as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore denied standing as a proper party to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
The refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (transfer processing) imposed on the worker were, in form, measures taken in response to workplace bullying. However, considering comprehensively that the duration of such measures was excessively long and disproportionate, that they lacked fairness, that the employer did not consider any alternative measures, and that the applicant had been in ongoing conflict with the employer over collective bargaining, the Commission determined that the measures constituted an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment.
On the other hand, the Commission found insufficient evidence to conclude that the measures were taken with the intention of interfering with or obstructing the autonomous operation and activities of the labor union, or of encouraging withdrawal from or division within the union. Accordingly, it held that the measures did not constitute an unfair labor practice in the form of domination and interference.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even if a worker qualifies as a worker under the Trade Union Act, he or she cannot file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission unless employee status under the Labor Standards Act is recognized. It is therefore necessary to first examine whether one’s contractual form and the actual manner of providing labor conform to the criteria used to determine employee status under the Labor Standards Act.
However, even where one is not recognized as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, if one suffers clearly unreasonable and substantially disadvantageous treatment from the employer—such as long-term refusal of work assignment or transfer processing—based on union activities or conflicts arising from collective bargaining, it should be borne in mind that an application for remedy for unfair labor practices (disadvantageous treatment) under the Trade Union Act may still be possible.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, it is necessary not to conclude that a particular labor provider lacks employee status under the Labor Standards Act solely on the basis of the contractual form, but rather to review comprehensively all elements of subordination, including actual direction and supervision of work, working hours, and method of remuneration.
In addition, when taking personnel measures such as refusal of work assignment or transfer processing under the pretext of addressing workplace bullying or managing conflicts, employers should design the duration, intensity, and fairness of such measures in a reasonable manner and keep records showing that alternative measures were considered. Otherwise, there is a high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find such measures to constitute an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment.
This decision on unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices clearly illustrates that the scope of “worker” under the Trade Union Act differs from that of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act, and that, irrespective of whether employee status is recognized, an employer’s personnel measures may still be evaluated as unfair labor practices. It should therefore serve as a reference in responding to similar cases.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker is an employee under the Labor Standards Act
The worker qualifies as a worker under the Trade Union Act, but it is difficult to regard him/her as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, he/she lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. As there is no practical benefit in determining whether the termination of contract (transfer processing), premised on the worker’s status as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, constitutes an unfair dismissal or is otherwise justified, the Commission did not rule on that point.
B. Whether the refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (transfer processing) constitute unfair labor practices in the form of disadvantageous treatment and domination/interference
The refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (transfer processing) imposed on the worker were measures taken in response to the worker’s workplace bullying. However, considering comprehensively that the duration of such measures was excessively long and disproportionate, that they lacked fairness, that the employer did not consider any alternative measures, and that the worker had been in ongoing conflict with the employer over collective bargaining, the Commission held that they constituted an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment.
At the same time, it found it difficult to conclude that the employer intended to interfere with or obstruct the autonomous operation and activities of the labor union, or to encourage withdrawal from or division within the union. Accordingly, the measures did not constitute an unfair labor practice in the form of domination and interference.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the worker is an employee under the Labor Standards Act
The worker qualifies as a worker under the Trade Union Act, but it is difficult to regard him/her as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, he/she lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. As there is no practical benefit in determining whether the termination of contract (transfer processing), premised on the worker’s status as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, constitutes an unfair dismissal or is otherwise justified, the Commission did not rule on that point.
B. Whether the refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (transfer processing) constitute unfair labor practices in the form of disadvantageous treatment and domination/interference
The refusal of work assignment and termination of contract (transfer processing) imposed on the worker were measures taken in response to the worker’s workplace bullying. However, considering comprehensively that the duration of such measures was excessively long and disproportionate, that they lacked fairness, that the employer did not consider any alternative measures, and that the worker had been in ongoing conflict with the employer over collective bargaining, the Commission held that they constituted an unfair labor practice in the form of disadvantageous treatment.
At the same time, it found it difficult to conclude that the employer intended to interfere with or obstruct the autonomous operation and activities of the labor union, or to encourage withdrawal from or division within the union. Accordingly, the measures did not constitute an unfair labor practice in the form of domination and interference. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (transfer processing of union executive), workplace bullying, 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, “‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (On-Site Workers During Winter Construction Suspension)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to denial of employee status (transfer processing of union executive) at the “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Transfer Processing of Union Executive).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
