Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Employee Status (Hostesses · Stage Singers)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 406)
- Date2026/04/26 04:12
- Read 148
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was concluded by procedural dismissal on the issue of “employee status (hostesses · stage singers).”
Decision Body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal 9981 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.11 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The Commission noted that the hostesses did not execute written employment contracts and there were no agreed working conditions or contract terms; that the detailed manner of performing their work appeared to be autonomously determined by the hostesses; that the employer appeared to have almost no room to intervene by way of work instructions; that the employer merely checked each week whether the hostesses were available to work and prepared a schedule accordingly, and even sudden absences did not result in any disadvantage; and that the hostesses’ income varied depending on whether they came to work and on their ability to attract customers, making it difficult to regard their income as fixed wages. In light of these factors, the Commission examined whether they were employees under the Labor Standards Act and whether the business had five or more regularly employed workers, which is a prerequisite for the unfair dismissal remedy system to apply.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal was filed in relation to a business operating an entertainment bar, where hostesses, stage singers, and hall service workers were engaged. The case was adjudicated by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused on two issues that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently handles: “employee status under the Labor Standards Act” and “whether the business had five or more regularly employed workers,” in order to determine whether this business fell within the scope of the unfair dismissal remedy system.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were: “whether the hostesses and stage singers qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act, and, on that premise, whether this business is one with five or more regularly employed workers and thus subject to applications for remedy for unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that it was difficult to regard the hostesses as employees who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer for the purpose of receiving wages under the Labor Standards Act, in light of the following: they did not execute written employment contracts and there were no agreed working conditions or contract terms; they determined the detailed manner of performing their work and their attendance on their own, with almost no specific direction or supervision from the employer; and their income varied depending on whether they came to work and on their ability to attract customers, making it difficult to view their remuneration as fixed wages.
As to the stage singers, the panel likewise found that employee status under the Labor Standards Act could not be recognized, given that there were no written employment contracts or agreed working conditions or contract terms; the specific content and manner of performances were autonomously determined by the singers, with virtually no room for the employer to intervene by way of work instructions; and they were allowed to hold concurrent positions and to perform at other businesses.
Accordingly, only one applicant worker and two hall service workers were recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act at this business. The business was therefore found to have fewer than five regularly employed workers. As a result, the dismissal at issue in this case did not fall within the scope of the unfair dismissal remedy system, and the application was dismissed, effectively resulting in a win for the employer.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Individuals working as hostesses, stage singers, or in other “freelance” forms of work should bear in mind that the mere use of labels such as “freelancer” or “contract for services/outsourcing agreement” does not automatically negate employee status. However, where, as in this case, workers determine their own attendance, work methods, and whether to attract customers; their income structure is performance-based rather than fixed; and there is almost no specific direction or supervision by the employer, it will be difficult to have employee status recognized by the Labor Relations Commission, and an application for remedy for unfair dismissal may be dismissed at the threshold.
Accordingly, those working in similar arrangements should regularly check for themselves the factors used to determine employee status: whether the employer sets the time and place of work; whether the employer gives detailed instructions and manages the content and manner of work; whether there are sanctions for absence or tardiness; and whether there is a fixed wage or base salary. To prepare for potential disputes, it is important to systematically retain materials that can demonstrate the employer’s direction/supervision and the wage nature of payments, such as work logs, messages and instructions, and pay records.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
For businesses such as entertainment bars, performance venues, gyms, and private academies that engage hostesses, stage singers, trainers, instructors, etc. as “freelancers,” it is necessary not to rely solely on the formal title of the contract, but to review whether the actual mode of operation aligns with the criteria for determining employee status. If, in substance, the relationship resembles employment—for example, where working hours and locations are strictly controlled, absences result in disciplinary action or disadvantages, and at least a minimum fixed wage is paid—then, even if the individuals are not enrolled in the four major social insurances and their income is treated as business income for tax purposes, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts may still recognize employee status.
In addition, since the unfair dismissal remedy system applies only where the individual is an employee under the Labor Standards Act and the business has five or more regularly employed workers, it is advisable to consult in advance with a labor law specialist on how to manage and classify personnel whose “employee status” may be in question when counting regularly employed workers. To reduce future HR and labor risks such as collective redundancies and disciplinary dismissals, employers should not only design contract types carefully but also align actual operating practices with the relevant legal principles.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
With respect to the hostesses, the Commission considered the following: they did not execute written employment contracts and there were no agreed working conditions or contract terms; the detailed manner of performing their work appeared to be autonomously determined by the hostesses; the employer appeared to have almost no room to intervene by way of work instructions; the employer checked each week whether the hostesses were available to work and prepared a schedule accordingly, and even sudden absences did not result in any disadvantage; and the hostesses’ income varied depending on whether they came to work and on their ability to attract customers, making it difficult to regard them as receiving fixed wages. In light of these factors, the Commission found it difficult to regard them as employees under the Labor Standards Act.
As for the stage singers, the Commission noted that they did not execute written employment contracts and there were no agreed working conditions or contract terms; the specific work content appeared to be autonomously determined by the stage singers, and the employer appeared to have virtually no room to intervene by way of work instructions; and concurrent positions were not prohibited and they were allowed to work at other businesses. In light of these factors, the Commission found that the stage singers likewise did not qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, only the worker in this case and two hall service workers were recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act within the business. The business therefore had fewer than five regularly employed workers and did not fall within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal remedy system.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
With respect to the hostesses, the Commission considered the following: they did not execute written employment contracts and there were no agreed working conditions or contract terms; the detailed manner of performing their work appeared to be autonomously determined by the hostesses; the employer appeared to have almost no room to intervene by way of work instructions; the employer checked each week whether the hostesses were available to work and prepared a schedule accordingly, and even sudden absences did not result in any disadvantage; and the hostesses’ income varied depending on whether they came to work and on their ability to attract customers, making it difficult to regard them as receiving fixed wages. In light of these factors, the Commission found it difficult to regard them as employees under the Labor Standards Act.
As for the stage singers, the Commission noted that they did not execute written employment contracts and there were no agreed working conditions or contract terms; the specific work content appeared to be autonomously determined by the stage singers, and the employer appeared to have virtually no room to intervene by way of work instructions; and concurrent positions were not prohibited and they were allowed to work at other businesses. In light of these factors, the Commission found that the stage singers likewise did not qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, only the worker in this case and two hall service workers were recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act within the business. The business therefore had fewer than five regularly employed workers and did not fall within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal remedy system. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Existence of Consent to Transfer (Dispatch to Affiliate)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status (hostesses · stage singers), 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Denial of Employee Status (Executive Director Management Contract)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employee status (hostesses · stage singers) can be viewed at “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status (Hostesses · Stage Singers).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was concluded by procedural dismissal on the issue of “employee status (hostesses · stage singers).”
Decision Body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal 9981 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.11 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The Commission noted that the hostesses did not execute written employment contracts and there were no agreed working conditions or contract terms; that the detailed manner of performing their work appeared to be autonomously determined by the hostesses; that the employer appeared to have almost no room to intervene by way of work instructions; that the employer merely checked each week whether the hostesses were available to work and prepared a schedule accordingly, and even sudden absences did not result in any disadvantage; and that the hostesses’ income varied depending on whether they came to work and on their ability to attract customers, making it difficult to regard their income as fixed wages. In light of these factors, the Commission examined whether they were employees under the Labor Standards Act and whether the business had five or more regularly employed workers, which is a prerequisite for the unfair dismissal remedy system to apply.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal was filed in relation to a business operating an entertainment bar, where hostesses, stage singers, and hall service workers were engaged. The case was adjudicated by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused on two issues that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently handles: “employee status under the Labor Standards Act” and “whether the business had five or more regularly employed workers,” in order to determine whether this business fell within the scope of the unfair dismissal remedy system.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were: “whether the hostesses and stage singers qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act, and, on that premise, whether this business is one with five or more regularly employed workers and thus subject to applications for remedy for unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that it was difficult to regard the hostesses as employees who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer for the purpose of receiving wages under the Labor Standards Act, in light of the following: they did not execute written employment contracts and there were no agreed working conditions or contract terms; they determined the detailed manner of performing their work and their attendance on their own, with almost no specific direction or supervision from the employer; and their income varied depending on whether they came to work and on their ability to attract customers, making it difficult to view their remuneration as fixed wages.
As to the stage singers, the panel likewise found that employee status under the Labor Standards Act could not be recognized, given that there were no written employment contracts or agreed working conditions or contract terms; the specific content and manner of performances were autonomously determined by the singers, with virtually no room for the employer to intervene by way of work instructions; and they were allowed to hold concurrent positions and to perform at other businesses.
Accordingly, only one applicant worker and two hall service workers were recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act at this business. The business was therefore found to have fewer than five regularly employed workers. As a result, the dismissal at issue in this case did not fall within the scope of the unfair dismissal remedy system, and the application was dismissed, effectively resulting in a win for the employer.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Individuals working as hostesses, stage singers, or in other “freelance” forms of work should bear in mind that the mere use of labels such as “freelancer” or “contract for services/outsourcing agreement” does not automatically negate employee status. However, where, as in this case, workers determine their own attendance, work methods, and whether to attract customers; their income structure is performance-based rather than fixed; and there is almost no specific direction or supervision by the employer, it will be difficult to have employee status recognized by the Labor Relations Commission, and an application for remedy for unfair dismissal may be dismissed at the threshold.
Accordingly, those working in similar arrangements should regularly check for themselves the factors used to determine employee status: whether the employer sets the time and place of work; whether the employer gives detailed instructions and manages the content and manner of work; whether there are sanctions for absence or tardiness; and whether there is a fixed wage or base salary. To prepare for potential disputes, it is important to systematically retain materials that can demonstrate the employer’s direction/supervision and the wage nature of payments, such as work logs, messages and instructions, and pay records.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
For businesses such as entertainment bars, performance venues, gyms, and private academies that engage hostesses, stage singers, trainers, instructors, etc. as “freelancers,” it is necessary not to rely solely on the formal title of the contract, but to review whether the actual mode of operation aligns with the criteria for determining employee status. If, in substance, the relationship resembles employment—for example, where working hours and locations are strictly controlled, absences result in disciplinary action or disadvantages, and at least a minimum fixed wage is paid—then, even if the individuals are not enrolled in the four major social insurances and their income is treated as business income for tax purposes, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts may still recognize employee status.
In addition, since the unfair dismissal remedy system applies only where the individual is an employee under the Labor Standards Act and the business has five or more regularly employed workers, it is advisable to consult in advance with a labor law specialist on how to manage and classify personnel whose “employee status” may be in question when counting regularly employed workers. To reduce future HR and labor risks such as collective redundancies and disciplinary dismissals, employers should not only design contract types carefully but also align actual operating practices with the relevant legal principles.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
With respect to the hostesses, the Commission considered the following: they did not execute written employment contracts and there were no agreed working conditions or contract terms; the detailed manner of performing their work appeared to be autonomously determined by the hostesses; the employer appeared to have almost no room to intervene by way of work instructions; the employer checked each week whether the hostesses were available to work and prepared a schedule accordingly, and even sudden absences did not result in any disadvantage; and the hostesses’ income varied depending on whether they came to work and on their ability to attract customers, making it difficult to regard them as receiving fixed wages. In light of these factors, the Commission found it difficult to regard them as employees under the Labor Standards Act.
As for the stage singers, the Commission noted that they did not execute written employment contracts and there were no agreed working conditions or contract terms; the specific work content appeared to be autonomously determined by the stage singers, and the employer appeared to have virtually no room to intervene by way of work instructions; and concurrent positions were not prohibited and they were allowed to work at other businesses. In light of these factors, the Commission found that the stage singers likewise did not qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, only the worker in this case and two hall service workers were recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act within the business. The business therefore had fewer than five regularly employed workers and did not fall within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal remedy system.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
With respect to the hostesses, the Commission considered the following: they did not execute written employment contracts and there were no agreed working conditions or contract terms; the detailed manner of performing their work appeared to be autonomously determined by the hostesses; the employer appeared to have almost no room to intervene by way of work instructions; the employer checked each week whether the hostesses were available to work and prepared a schedule accordingly, and even sudden absences did not result in any disadvantage; and the hostesses’ income varied depending on whether they came to work and on their ability to attract customers, making it difficult to regard them as receiving fixed wages. In light of these factors, the Commission found it difficult to regard them as employees under the Labor Standards Act.
As for the stage singers, the Commission noted that they did not execute written employment contracts and there were no agreed working conditions or contract terms; the specific work content appeared to be autonomously determined by the stage singers, and the employer appeared to have virtually no room to intervene by way of work instructions; and concurrent positions were not prohibited and they were allowed to work at other businesses. In light of these factors, the Commission found that the stage singers likewise did not qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, only the worker in this case and two hall service workers were recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act within the business. The business therefore had fewer than five regularly employed workers and did not fall within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal remedy system. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Existence of Consent to Transfer (Dispatch to Affiliate)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status (hostesses · stage singers), 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Denial of Employee Status (Executive Director Management Contract)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employee status (hostesses · stage singers) can be viewed at “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status (Hostesses · Stage Singers).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
