Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on the Existence of Dismissal (“Do Not Come to Work” Remark) (Unfair Dismissal 369)
- Date2026/04/13 04:08
- Read 165
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of whether a dismissal existed (“do not come to work” remark).
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9250 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.19 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: Even if some company employees told the worker in substance not to come to work, those employees did not have decision-making authority to terminate the employment relationship between the employer and the worker, nor were they in a position as the employer to exercise such authority. In contrast, the worker refused the employer’s request for reassignment, found new employment at another workplace, and raised no objection with the employer thereafter. The worker also failed to objectively prove any other facts constituting a dismissal...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal after being told by certain company employees, in effect, not to come to work. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the circumstances surrounding the termination of the relationship between the employer and the worker, focusing on whether an actual dismissal had occurred. Labor Law Firm Law& is paying close attention to how the criteria for determining the existence of a dismissal are applied in this type of unfair dismissal dispute.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where there has been no formal notice of dismissal from the employer, but certain company employees have made remarks to the effect that the worker should ‘not come to work,’ and considering the subsequent refusal by the worker to accept reassignment and the worker’s re-employment at another workplace, does there exist a dismissal between the worker and the employer that constitutes an unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case held that, even if some company employees did in fact say to the worker, in substance, not to come to work, those employees were not in the position of the employer with decision-making authority to terminate the employment relationship, nor were they in a position to exercise such authority. The panel also noted that the worker, after voluntarily refusing the employer’s request for reassignment and obtaining new employment at another workplace, did not raise any particular objection with the employer, and that the worker failed to submit any materials objectively proving a specific notice of dismissal or the fact of dismissal.
Accordingly, the panel found it difficult to recognize that any dismissal disposition in this case existed at all, and therefore determined that the worker’s claim of unfair dismissal could not be accepted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Under the Labor Standards Act, “dismissal” refers to any unilateral measure by which the employer terminates the employment relationship, regardless of its name or form. However, at the Labor Relations Commission stage, the worker must at least present basic facts and evidence as to whether a dismissal actually occurred. Vague remarks such as “don’t come to work” made by colleagues or mid-level managers are unlikely to be recognized as a dismissal on their own. The overall course of conduct—such as refusal of reassignment, moving to another job, and whether any objection was raised with the employer—also becomes an important factor in assessing consistency with the claim of dismissal. In similar situations, workers should try to secure as concretely as possible the employer’s expression of intent through text messages, messenger records, audio recordings, HR documents, and the like.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even where there is no actual intent to dismiss, emotional remarks by on-site managers or colleagues such as “just quit” or “don’t come in from tomorrow” can later become the starting point of an unfair dismissal dispute. Employers should clearly identify who has authority over personnel decisions, and any measures that significantly affect the employment relationship—such as reassignment, transfer, dismissal by authority, or redundancy—should always be carried out through a clear written notice in the employer’s name or via appropriate procedures. In situations where a worker refuses reassignment and in effect leaves the workplace, it is helpful for preventing future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission to clearly organize whether the situation constitutes resignation or unauthorized absence and to document the relevant facts in writing.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Even if some company employees did in fact say to the worker, in substance, not to come to work, those employees did not have decision-making authority to terminate the employment relationship between the employer and the worker, nor were they in a position as the employer to exercise such authority. In contrast, after refusing the employer’s request for reassignment, the worker found new employment at another workplace and raised no objection with the employer, and the worker failed to submit any materials that could objectively prove the fact of dismissal. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that it could not conclude that a dismissal had occurred.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Even if some company employees did in fact say to the worker, in substance, not to come to work, those employees did not have decision-making authority to terminate the employment relationship between the employer and the worker, nor were they in a position as the employer to exercise such authority. In contrast, after refusing the employer’s request for reassignment, the worker found new employment at another workplace and raised no objection with the employer, and the worker failed to submit any materials that could objectively prove the fact of dismissal. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that it could not conclude that a dismissal had occurred. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision Date: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Denial of Employee Status (Processing of Union Officer’s Job Change)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (“do not come to work” remark), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on Denial of Employee Status (Processing of Union Officer’s Job Change),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (“do not come to work” remark) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (‘Do Not Come to Work’ Remark).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of whether a dismissal existed (“do not come to work” remark).
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9250 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.19 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: Even if some company employees told the worker in substance not to come to work, those employees did not have decision-making authority to terminate the employment relationship between the employer and the worker, nor were they in a position as the employer to exercise such authority. In contrast, the worker refused the employer’s request for reassignment, found new employment at another workplace, and raised no objection with the employer thereafter. The worker also failed to objectively prove any other facts constituting a dismissal...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal after being told by certain company employees, in effect, not to come to work. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the circumstances surrounding the termination of the relationship between the employer and the worker, focusing on whether an actual dismissal had occurred. Labor Law Firm Law& is paying close attention to how the criteria for determining the existence of a dismissal are applied in this type of unfair dismissal dispute.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where there has been no formal notice of dismissal from the employer, but certain company employees have made remarks to the effect that the worker should ‘not come to work,’ and considering the subsequent refusal by the worker to accept reassignment and the worker’s re-employment at another workplace, does there exist a dismissal between the worker and the employer that constitutes an unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case held that, even if some company employees did in fact say to the worker, in substance, not to come to work, those employees were not in the position of the employer with decision-making authority to terminate the employment relationship, nor were they in a position to exercise such authority. The panel also noted that the worker, after voluntarily refusing the employer’s request for reassignment and obtaining new employment at another workplace, did not raise any particular objection with the employer, and that the worker failed to submit any materials objectively proving a specific notice of dismissal or the fact of dismissal.
Accordingly, the panel found it difficult to recognize that any dismissal disposition in this case existed at all, and therefore determined that the worker’s claim of unfair dismissal could not be accepted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Under the Labor Standards Act, “dismissal” refers to any unilateral measure by which the employer terminates the employment relationship, regardless of its name or form. However, at the Labor Relations Commission stage, the worker must at least present basic facts and evidence as to whether a dismissal actually occurred. Vague remarks such as “don’t come to work” made by colleagues or mid-level managers are unlikely to be recognized as a dismissal on their own. The overall course of conduct—such as refusal of reassignment, moving to another job, and whether any objection was raised with the employer—also becomes an important factor in assessing consistency with the claim of dismissal. In similar situations, workers should try to secure as concretely as possible the employer’s expression of intent through text messages, messenger records, audio recordings, HR documents, and the like.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even where there is no actual intent to dismiss, emotional remarks by on-site managers or colleagues such as “just quit” or “don’t come in from tomorrow” can later become the starting point of an unfair dismissal dispute. Employers should clearly identify who has authority over personnel decisions, and any measures that significantly affect the employment relationship—such as reassignment, transfer, dismissal by authority, or redundancy—should always be carried out through a clear written notice in the employer’s name or via appropriate procedures. In situations where a worker refuses reassignment and in effect leaves the workplace, it is helpful for preventing future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission to clearly organize whether the situation constitutes resignation or unauthorized absence and to document the relevant facts in writing.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Even if some company employees did in fact say to the worker, in substance, not to come to work, those employees did not have decision-making authority to terminate the employment relationship between the employer and the worker, nor were they in a position as the employer to exercise such authority. In contrast, after refusing the employer’s request for reassignment, the worker found new employment at another workplace and raised no objection with the employer, and the worker failed to submit any materials that could objectively prove the fact of dismissal. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that it could not conclude that a dismissal had occurred.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Even if some company employees did in fact say to the worker, in substance, not to come to work, those employees did not have decision-making authority to terminate the employment relationship between the employer and the worker, nor were they in a position as the employer to exercise such authority. In contrast, after refusing the employer’s request for reassignment, the worker found new employment at another workplace and raised no objection with the employer, and the worker failed to submit any materials that could objectively prove the fact of dismissal. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that it could not conclude that a dismissal had occurred. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision Date: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Denial of Employee Status (Processing of Union Officer’s Job Change)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (“do not come to work” remark), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on Denial of Employee Status (Processing of Union Officer’s Job Change),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (“do not come to work” remark) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (‘Do Not Come to Work’ Remark).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
