Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Existence of Dismissal (One-Day Daily Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 394)
- Date2026/04/22 04:13
- Read 165
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (one-day daily employment contract).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae10096 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: As the worker went home immediately after reporting to work without providing any labor, it was difficult to view the employment contract as having been fully formed and performed. Even assuming that an employment contract had been concluded, (1) the employer generally hired store staff first as daily workers and, if they were deemed suitable for the job, then hired them as regular employees; (2) the employer also told the worker at the interview to first work as a daily worker; and (3) when the worker had friction with store staff, the employer again mentioned the intent that the worker should “try working as a daily worker” …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the worker went home shortly after reporting for the first day of work at the store, without actually providing any labor, and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. The employer argued that the worker had been hired from the outset as a one-day daily worker and that the employment relationship simply ended with the end of work on that day, so there was no dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the facts and the substance of the employment contract as a whole, found in favor of the employer, and Labor Law Firm Law& represented the employer in the proceedings.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the worker went home immediately after the first reporting to work without providing any labor, the employment contract continued as an ongoing employment relationship, and whether the employer’s “notice of end of work” constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that, given that the worker went home immediately after reporting to work without providing any labor, it was difficult to regard the employment contract as having been fully performed; that the employer generally hired store staff first as “daily workers” and, if they were deemed suitable for the job, then converted them to regular employees; and that, both during the interview process and in subsequent conflict situations, the consistent message conveyed was “first try working as a daily worker.”
Accordingly, the relationship between the worker and the employer was properly viewed as a one-day employment contract.
The Commission held that what occurred in this case was merely the natural expiration of a one-day employment contract upon the end of work that day, and that it was difficult to find any separate manifestation of intent to dismiss. Therefore, the case did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is important at the hiring stage to clearly confirm whether you are a “probationary employee on the premise of regular employment” or a “pure daily worker,” and to clarify the term and type of your employment contract. In particular, if you were unable to actually provide labor on the first day of work, the existence of the employment relationship as of that day, and whether any subsequent notice from the employer constitutes a dismissal or a simple contract expiration, may differ. You should therefore preserve, as far as possible, any materials that show the nature of the contract, such as text messages, messenger records, and interview statements.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when using daily employment arrangements, it is necessary to clearly state in the employment contract, interview explanations, and work schedules that the contract is “on a one-day basis,” and to organize in advance the criteria and procedures for conversion to regular employment. In actual operations, if daily, fixed-term, and regular employees are used in combination, care should be taken—under the Supreme Court’s principle that “substance prevails over form”—to ensure that long-term repeated use or de facto continuous work does not create a factual state of regular, ongoing employment.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
As the worker went home immediately after reporting to work without providing any labor, it was difficult to regard the employment contract as having been fully formed and performed. Even assuming that an employment contract had been concluded, (1) the employer generally hired store staff first as daily workers and, if they were deemed suitable for the job, then hired them as regular employees; (2) the employer also told the worker at the interview to first work as a daily worker; and (3) when the worker had friction with store staff, the employer again mentioned the intent that the worker should try working as a daily worker. In light of these circumstances, it was appropriate to view the relationship as a one-day employment contract, and given that such a one-day employment contract ends, together with the end of work on that day, the employment relationship also ends, the Commission concluded that there was no dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
As the worker went home immediately after reporting to work without providing any labor, it was difficult to regard the employment contract as having been fully formed and performed. Even assuming that an employment contract had been concluded, (1) the employer generally hired store staff first as daily workers and, if they were deemed suitable for the job, then hired them as regular employees; (2) the employer also told the worker at the interview to first work as a daily worker; and (3) when the worker had friction with store staff, the employer again mentioned the intent that the worker should try working as a daily worker. In light of these circumstances, it was appropriate to view the relationship as a one-day employment contract, and given that such a one-day employment contract ends, together with the end of work on that day, the employment relationship also ends, the Commission concluded that there was no dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Existence of Dismissal (Assault Incident Interview Recording)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (one-day daily employment contract), 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Unrecorded Break Time)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (one-day daily employment contract) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (One-Day Daily Employment Contract).”
※ 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 (one-day daily employment contract).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae10096 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: As the worker went home immediately after reporting to work without providing any labor, it was difficult to view the employment contract as having been fully formed and performed. Even assuming that an employment contract had been concluded, (1) the employer generally hired store staff first as daily workers and, if they were deemed suitable for the job, then hired them as regular employees; (2) the employer also told the worker at the interview to first work as a daily worker; and (3) when the worker had friction with store staff, the employer again mentioned the intent that the worker should “try working as a daily worker” …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the worker went home shortly after reporting for the first day of work at the store, without actually providing any labor, and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. The employer argued that the worker had been hired from the outset as a one-day daily worker and that the employment relationship simply ended with the end of work on that day, so there was no dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the facts and the substance of the employment contract as a whole, found in favor of the employer, and Labor Law Firm Law& represented the employer in the proceedings.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the worker went home immediately after the first reporting to work without providing any labor, the employment contract continued as an ongoing employment relationship, and whether the employer’s “notice of end of work” constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that, given that the worker went home immediately after reporting to work without providing any labor, it was difficult to regard the employment contract as having been fully performed; that the employer generally hired store staff first as “daily workers” and, if they were deemed suitable for the job, then converted them to regular employees; and that, both during the interview process and in subsequent conflict situations, the consistent message conveyed was “first try working as a daily worker.”
Accordingly, the relationship between the worker and the employer was properly viewed as a one-day employment contract.
The Commission held that what occurred in this case was merely the natural expiration of a one-day employment contract upon the end of work that day, and that it was difficult to find any separate manifestation of intent to dismiss. Therefore, the case did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is important at the hiring stage to clearly confirm whether you are a “probationary employee on the premise of regular employment” or a “pure daily worker,” and to clarify the term and type of your employment contract. In particular, if you were unable to actually provide labor on the first day of work, the existence of the employment relationship as of that day, and whether any subsequent notice from the employer constitutes a dismissal or a simple contract expiration, may differ. You should therefore preserve, as far as possible, any materials that show the nature of the contract, such as text messages, messenger records, and interview statements.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when using daily employment arrangements, it is necessary to clearly state in the employment contract, interview explanations, and work schedules that the contract is “on a one-day basis,” and to organize in advance the criteria and procedures for conversion to regular employment. In actual operations, if daily, fixed-term, and regular employees are used in combination, care should be taken—under the Supreme Court’s principle that “substance prevails over form”—to ensure that long-term repeated use or de facto continuous work does not create a factual state of regular, ongoing employment.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
As the worker went home immediately after reporting to work without providing any labor, it was difficult to regard the employment contract as having been fully formed and performed. Even assuming that an employment contract had been concluded, (1) the employer generally hired store staff first as daily workers and, if they were deemed suitable for the job, then hired them as regular employees; (2) the employer also told the worker at the interview to first work as a daily worker; and (3) when the worker had friction with store staff, the employer again mentioned the intent that the worker should try working as a daily worker. In light of these circumstances, it was appropriate to view the relationship as a one-day employment contract, and given that such a one-day employment contract ends, together with the end of work on that day, the employment relationship also ends, the Commission concluded that there was no dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
As the worker went home immediately after reporting to work without providing any labor, it was difficult to regard the employment contract as having been fully formed and performed. Even assuming that an employment contract had been concluded, (1) the employer generally hired store staff first as daily workers and, if they were deemed suitable for the job, then hired them as regular employees; (2) the employer also told the worker at the interview to first work as a daily worker; and (3) when the worker had friction with store staff, the employer again mentioned the intent that the worker should try working as a daily worker. In light of these circumstances, it was appropriate to view the relationship as a one-day employment contract, and given that such a one-day employment contract ends, together with the end of work on that day, the employment relationship also ends, the Commission concluded that there was no dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Existence of Dismissal (Assault Incident Interview Recording)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (one-day daily employment contract), 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Unrecorded Break Time)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (one-day daily employment contract) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (One-Day Daily Employment Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
