An unfair dismissal relief application was filed in relation to “denial of existence of dismissal (site manager’s resignation letter),” and a decision was rendered in which the employer prevailed. I would like to share this decision and its legal implications with you.

In this post, focusing on a Labor Relations Commission decision, we will examine the boundary between unfair dismissal and the submission of a resignation letter, as well as issues that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently handles in practice. This will be particularly relevant for industries such as construction sites, where collective redundancies and workforce adjustments are frequent, and where the resignation of a site manager is often at issue.

1. Legal Implications

The key issue in this case was “whether a resignation letter submitted by an employee acting as a site manager, under pressure, should be regarded as a dismissal by the employer or as a voluntary resignation by the employee.”

The decision panel in this case noted that the employee, as a site manager, had failed to adequately manage the site, leading the principal contractor to demand replacement of the site manager; that, as a result, substantial problems were arising for the company in the process of claiming construction payments from the principal contractor; that, in the course of these developments, the employee appeared to have voluntarily submitted a resignation letter; and that no circumstances could be found indicating that the employer had deceived or constrained the employee’s will.

Although the employee claimed to have been notified of dismissal by the employer, and asserted that the employer had in effect expressed an intention to dismiss and thereby created an atmosphere in which it was impossible to continue working; and although there was some room to view the employee’s argument as asserting that the pressure arising from the situation at the construction site caused such psychological burden that the employee had no choice but to submit a resignation letter, nevertheless, despite these assertions by the employee,

the decision in this case was that there was no explicit or implicit expression of intent by the employer to unilaterally terminate the employment contract, and thus no dismissal existed in the first place. On that basis, the claim of unfair dismissal was rejected.

In disputes where the characterization of separation as resignation or dismissal is contested, this case reconfirms that the core issues are whether an actual intention to dismiss was expressed, and whether the employer obtained the resignation letter through deception, coercion, or similar means. From the employee’s perspective, it is important to preserve objective records of the content and timing of any dismissal notice, the circumstances under which the resignation letter was submitted, and any specific acts of pressure or inducement. From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to systematically organize documents and witness statements to prove that the employee voluntarily drafted and submitted the resignation letter and that no improper pressure was exerted in the process.

2. Decision

Given the circumstances that, as a site manager, the employee’s inadequate site management led the principal contractor to request replacement of the site manager, and that in the course of problems arising in relation to claims for construction payments from the principal contractor the employee came to submit a resignation letter, it is reasonable to view the resignation as having been submitted in that context. No circumstances can be found indicating that the employer deceived or constrained the employee’s will. Moreover, based solely on the employee’s assertions, it cannot be deemed that the employer explicitly expressed an intention to dismiss, nor is there any specific content from which such an intention can be inferred. Therefore, no dismissal exists in this case.

3. Gist of the Decision

Given the circumstances that, as a site manager, the employee’s inadequate site management led the principal contractor to request replacement of the site manager, and that in the course of problems arising in relation to claims for construction payments from the principal contractor the employee came to submit a resignation letter, it is reasonable to view the resignation as having been submitted in that context. No circumstances can be found indicating that the employer deceived or constrained the employee’s will. Moreover, based solely on the employee’s assertions, it cannot be deemed that the employer explicitly expressed an intention to dismiss, nor is there any specific content from which such an intention can be inferred. Therefore, no dismissal exists in this case. /