Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on the Existence of Dismissal (Daily Wage · Flexible Attendance) (Unfair Dismissal 395)
- Date2026/04/23 04:04
- Read 160
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (daily wage · flexible attendance).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10024 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
① The parties entered into employment contracts on a one‑month basis, wages were paid on a daily‑wage basis in proportion to the number of days worked, and when the worker had personal commitments, he would have another worker work in his place or would notify the employer in advance that he could not come to work, so attendance appeared to be voluntary and flexible.
② In this context, the employer’s explanation in 2025 that work could not proceed for several days due to process‑design issues, and the subsequent developments, raised the question of whether these could be regarded as a notice of dismissal to the worker.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a worker who had been repeatedly entering into one‑month employment contracts in a form close to day‑to‑day employment. After work was suspended due to process‑design problems, the worker was no longer able to report to work and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted its hearing focusing on whether the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the worker’s will, that is, whether a dismissal existed, and ultimately rejected the claim of unfair dismissal.
Among Labor Relations Commission cases dealing with unfair dismissal, this decision is one in which the very question of “whether a dismissal occurred” was the core issue. As it is useful for responding to similar cases, it is organized here from the practical perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a one‑month, daily‑wage, flexible‑attendance employment contract, where work has been suspended due to process‑design problems, can the employer’s explanation of the situation and subsequent developments be regarded as a notice of dismissal to the worker?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found as follows: The employer entered into employment contracts with the worker on a one‑month basis and paid wages on a daily‑wage basis according to the number of days worked. When the worker had personal commitments, he would arrange for another worker to be assigned or would notify the employer in advance that he would not report to work, so attendance was operated in a voluntary and flexible manner. It is difficult to regard the employer’s mere explanation that it would be difficult to proceed with work for several days due to process‑design problems as a notice of termination of the employment contract. In light of the fact that the worker sent a text message to the employer at the time demanding payment of a suspension allowance, it appears that he himself did not recognize that a dismissal existed.
Taking into account that the employer, in light of process circumstances, proposed assignment to another process but the worker did not accept this, citing personal commitments, and that there is no objective evidence to indicate that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship, the Commission determined that it is difficult to view the employer as having unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the worker’s will.
Accordingly, the Commission held that no dismissal existed in this case, and therefore the application for a remedy for unfair dismissal should be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is necessary to respond after clearly distinguishing whether the employer has in fact given notice of dismissal, or whether the situation amounts only to a temporary suspension of work or a proposal for reassignment. If there are text messages, KakaoTalk messages, recordings, etc. in which the worker, on the premise that “this is not a dismissal,” requests suspension allowances or reassignment, significant difficulties may later arise in proving the very existence of a dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
In addition, even in a structure of daily or short‑term contracts and flexible attendance, if there are circumstances in which the employer has explicitly refused the provision of labor, for example by saying “Do not come in anymore,” the worker must specifically secure such evidence in order to have a practical basis for contesting unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s side, when notifying workers of a work stoppage or reassignment due to process circumstances, it is important to clearly distinguish in the wording whether the intent is “temporary suspension/reassignment” or “termination of the employment relationship.” Particularly in a daily‑wage, flexible‑attendance structure, the employment contract and actual operating practices should be aligned so that it is clear that the opportunity to provide labor itself is flexible rather than that a dismissal has occurred, and relevant records (such as proposals for reassignment and the worker’s reasons for refusal) should be retained.
Furthermore, in situations where the payment of suspension allowances may become an issue, employers should keep materials organizing the cause and duration of the work stoppage and whether alternative processes were proposed, so that they can persuasively prove before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts that the matter concerned “suspension/reassignment rather than dismissal.”
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The parties entered into employment contracts on a one‑month basis, wages were paid on a daily‑wage basis in proportion to the number of days worked, and when the worker had personal commitments, he would have another worker work in his place or would notify the employer in advance that he could not come to work, so attendance appeared to be voluntary and flexible.
② In this context, it is difficult to regard the employer’s explanation to the workers on 10 November 2025 that it would be difficult to proceed with work for several days due to process‑design problems at the subcontractor as an immediate notice of termination of the employment contract.
③ The worker sent a text message to the employer on 24 November 2025 demanding payment of a suspension allowance, and this suggests that the worker himself did not at that time recognize that a dismissal existed.
④ The employer, due to process circumstances, proposed that the worker participate in another process, but the worker did not accept this, citing personal commitments.
⑤ There is no objective evidence indicating that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship.
In light of all these circumstances, it does not appear that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the worker’s will. Therefore, no dismissal exists.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The parties entered into employment contracts on a one‑month basis, wages were paid on a daily‑wage basis in proportion to the number of days worked, and when the worker had personal commitments, he would have another worker work in his place or would notify the employer in advance that he could not come to work, so attendance appeared to be voluntary and flexible.
② In this context, it is difficult to regard the employer’s explanation to the workers on 10 November 2025 that it would be difficult to proceed with work for several days due to process‑design problems at the subcontractor as an immediate notice of termination of the employment contract.
③ The worker sent a text message to the employer on 24 November 2025 demanding payment of a suspension allowance, and this suggests that the worker himself did not at that time recognize that a dismissal existed.
④ The employer, due to process circumstances, proposed that the worker participate in another process, but the worker did not accept this, citing personal commitments.
⑤ There is no objective evidence indicating that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship.
In light of all these circumstances, it does not appear that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the worker’s will. Therefore, no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (daily wage · flexible attendance), 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Existence of Dismissal (One‑Day Daily Employment Contract),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (daily wage · flexible attendance) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Daily Wage · Flexible Attendance).”
※ 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 (daily wage · flexible attendance).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10024 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
① The parties entered into employment contracts on a one‑month basis, wages were paid on a daily‑wage basis in proportion to the number of days worked, and when the worker had personal commitments, he would have another worker work in his place or would notify the employer in advance that he could not come to work, so attendance appeared to be voluntary and flexible.
② In this context, the employer’s explanation in 2025 that work could not proceed for several days due to process‑design issues, and the subsequent developments, raised the question of whether these could be regarded as a notice of dismissal to the worker.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a worker who had been repeatedly entering into one‑month employment contracts in a form close to day‑to‑day employment. After work was suspended due to process‑design problems, the worker was no longer able to report to work and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted its hearing focusing on whether the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the worker’s will, that is, whether a dismissal existed, and ultimately rejected the claim of unfair dismissal.
Among Labor Relations Commission cases dealing with unfair dismissal, this decision is one in which the very question of “whether a dismissal occurred” was the core issue. As it is useful for responding to similar cases, it is organized here from the practical perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a one‑month, daily‑wage, flexible‑attendance employment contract, where work has been suspended due to process‑design problems, can the employer’s explanation of the situation and subsequent developments be regarded as a notice of dismissal to the worker?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found as follows: The employer entered into employment contracts with the worker on a one‑month basis and paid wages on a daily‑wage basis according to the number of days worked. When the worker had personal commitments, he would arrange for another worker to be assigned or would notify the employer in advance that he would not report to work, so attendance was operated in a voluntary and flexible manner. It is difficult to regard the employer’s mere explanation that it would be difficult to proceed with work for several days due to process‑design problems as a notice of termination of the employment contract. In light of the fact that the worker sent a text message to the employer at the time demanding payment of a suspension allowance, it appears that he himself did not recognize that a dismissal existed.
Taking into account that the employer, in light of process circumstances, proposed assignment to another process but the worker did not accept this, citing personal commitments, and that there is no objective evidence to indicate that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship, the Commission determined that it is difficult to view the employer as having unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the worker’s will.
Accordingly, the Commission held that no dismissal existed in this case, and therefore the application for a remedy for unfair dismissal should be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is necessary to respond after clearly distinguishing whether the employer has in fact given notice of dismissal, or whether the situation amounts only to a temporary suspension of work or a proposal for reassignment. If there are text messages, KakaoTalk messages, recordings, etc. in which the worker, on the premise that “this is not a dismissal,” requests suspension allowances or reassignment, significant difficulties may later arise in proving the very existence of a dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
In addition, even in a structure of daily or short‑term contracts and flexible attendance, if there are circumstances in which the employer has explicitly refused the provision of labor, for example by saying “Do not come in anymore,” the worker must specifically secure such evidence in order to have a practical basis for contesting unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s side, when notifying workers of a work stoppage or reassignment due to process circumstances, it is important to clearly distinguish in the wording whether the intent is “temporary suspension/reassignment” or “termination of the employment relationship.” Particularly in a daily‑wage, flexible‑attendance structure, the employment contract and actual operating practices should be aligned so that it is clear that the opportunity to provide labor itself is flexible rather than that a dismissal has occurred, and relevant records (such as proposals for reassignment and the worker’s reasons for refusal) should be retained.
Furthermore, in situations where the payment of suspension allowances may become an issue, employers should keep materials organizing the cause and duration of the work stoppage and whether alternative processes were proposed, so that they can persuasively prove before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts that the matter concerned “suspension/reassignment rather than dismissal.”
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The parties entered into employment contracts on a one‑month basis, wages were paid on a daily‑wage basis in proportion to the number of days worked, and when the worker had personal commitments, he would have another worker work in his place or would notify the employer in advance that he could not come to work, so attendance appeared to be voluntary and flexible.
② In this context, it is difficult to regard the employer’s explanation to the workers on 10 November 2025 that it would be difficult to proceed with work for several days due to process‑design problems at the subcontractor as an immediate notice of termination of the employment contract.
③ The worker sent a text message to the employer on 24 November 2025 demanding payment of a suspension allowance, and this suggests that the worker himself did not at that time recognize that a dismissal existed.
④ The employer, due to process circumstances, proposed that the worker participate in another process, but the worker did not accept this, citing personal commitments.
⑤ There is no objective evidence indicating that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship.
In light of all these circumstances, it does not appear that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the worker’s will. Therefore, no dismissal exists.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The parties entered into employment contracts on a one‑month basis, wages were paid on a daily‑wage basis in proportion to the number of days worked, and when the worker had personal commitments, he would have another worker work in his place or would notify the employer in advance that he could not come to work, so attendance appeared to be voluntary and flexible.
② In this context, it is difficult to regard the employer’s explanation to the workers on 10 November 2025 that it would be difficult to proceed with work for several days due to process‑design problems at the subcontractor as an immediate notice of termination of the employment contract.
③ The worker sent a text message to the employer on 24 November 2025 demanding payment of a suspension allowance, and this suggests that the worker himself did not at that time recognize that a dismissal existed.
④ The employer, due to process circumstances, proposed that the worker participate in another process, but the worker did not accept this, citing personal commitments.
⑤ There is no objective evidence indicating that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship.
In light of all these circumstances, it does not appear that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the worker’s will. Therefore, no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (daily wage · flexible attendance), 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Existence of Dismissal (One‑Day Daily Employment Contract),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (daily wage · flexible attendance) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Daily Wage · Flexible Attendance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
