Corporate trends / Performance record
Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Daily Construction Workers): Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 413)
- Date2026/04/29 04:04
- Read 145
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (daily construction workers).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae10112 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.10 · Result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: ① The workers in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns workers employed as daily workers at a construction site who, after the expiry of their fixed-term contracts, filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that their employment contracts should have been renewed for as long as the construction work continued. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined not only whether there had been an unfair dismissal, but also, as a core issue, whether these workers had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts. Ultimately, the Commission accepted the company’s arguments and dismissed the workers’ applications.
This decision illustrates how the legal doctrine on “legitimate expectation of renewal for fixed-term and daily workers,” which frequently arises in unfair dismissal disputes, is applied in practice. It also serves as a case that confirms the typical structure of issues in collective redundancy and contract-expiry disputes at construction sites, as handled in practice by the Labor Relations Commission and Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether workers who entered into daily employment contracts for a fixed term at a construction site can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation that their contracts would be renewed for as long as the construction work continued.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the workers had entered into daily employment contracts clearly specifying the term as running until 30 September 2025; that there were no provisions in the employment contracts, work rules, or collective agreement regarding the conditions, procedures, or criteria for contract renewal; and that the workers themselves testified that they had never received any specific explanation or assurance from the company about renewal, but had merely “thought it would continue.”
In light of these circumstances, the Commission evaluated the workers’ asserted expectation that they “would be able to work for as long as the construction continued” as no more than a subjective expectation lacking any objective basis. Furthermore, it found that, under the subcontract agreement between the company and the principal contractor, the scheduled completion date was 19 October 2025 and actual completion took place on 18 October 2025, so there were no circumstances supporting the workers’ claimed expectation of continued employment until 25 November 2025.
Taking all of these factors together, and in light of the Supreme Court’s doctrine on legitimate expectation of renewal (which assesses whether a “legitimate expectation relationship” has been formed by comprehensively considering the contract terms, renewal practices, existence of renewal criteria, continuity of the business, and other factors), the Commission held that it was difficult to recognize any legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contracts on the part of these workers. It therefore concluded that the employment relationship had naturally terminated upon expiry of the contract term, that there had been no dismissal by the employer at all, and that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Workers’ Perspective)
From the workers’ perspective, it is important to clearly understand that vague expectations such as “it seemed like the construction would continue” or “other colleagues worked there for a long time” are not sufficient to establish a legitimate expectation of renewal. Where the contract period is expressly stated in the employment contract and there are no provisions on renewal criteria or procedures, no consistent practice of renewal by the company, and no specific promises or explanations from the employer, the termination will legally be regarded as a natural expiry of the contract term, and an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is unlikely to be upheld.
Accordingly, when being hired as a fixed-term or daily worker, you should carefully check not only the contract period stated in the employment contract, but also how the possibility of renewal, evaluation criteria, and linkage to the construction period are described. You should also bear in mind that, even if a site manager says something like “we usually keep people on if possible,” it will be difficult to obtain legal protection unless such statements are supported by written rules or a repeated practice of renewal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when entering into contracts with daily or fixed-term workers at construction sites, it is important to clearly specify the contract period and end date, and to make a policy decision as to whether to omit any provisions on renewal altogether or to establish renewal criteria linked to evaluations, construction period, etc. In particular, if the construction period specified in the subcontract agreement and the actual completion date are taken into account from the stage of hiring workers and setting contract periods, the employer will later be able to respond with objective evidence to claims such as “I expected to remain employed because the construction was still ongoing.”
In addition, site managers should be trained not to make statements that could be understood as guaranteeing renewal, such as “guaranteed until retirement age” or “you will definitely stay until the end of the project,” during the hiring and management of workers. If necessary, guidance documents or annexes to the employment contract should explicitly state that “the employment relationship will terminate upon expiry of the contract period unless a separate renewal is made.” Such documentation will be key evidence in future proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission to prove that the company did not confer any legitimate expectation of renewal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The workers entered into daily employment contracts with a fixed term running until 30 September 2025; ② the workers argue that they had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts for as long as the construction work at the site continued, but their employment contracts contain no provisions on contract renewal, they are daily workers and thus not subject to the company’s work rules, and even if they were subject to the work rules, those rules contain no provisions on renewal of employment contracts; ③ the workers never received any explanation or assurance regarding renewal of their daily employment contracts, and merely testified that they had inwardly thought the contracts would be renewed; ④ the workers claim that they expected to be able to work until 25 November 2025, but under the subcontract agreement concluded between the company and the principal contractor, the scheduled completion date was 19 October 2025 and actual completion took place on 18 October 2025, so there are no circumstances supporting the workers’ subjective expectation. In light of all of the above, it cannot be found that the workers had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The workers entered into daily employment contracts with a fixed term running until 30 September 2025; ② the workers argue that they had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts for as long as the construction work at the site continued, but their employment contracts contain no provisions on contract renewal, they are daily workers and thus not subject to the company’s work rules, and even if they were subject to the work rules, those rules contain no provisions on renewal of employment contracts; ③ the workers never received any explanation or assurance regarding renewal of their daily employment contracts, and merely testified that they had inwardly thought the contracts would be renewed; ④ the workers claim that they expected to be able to work until 25 November 2025, but under the subcontract agreement concluded between the company and the principal contractor, the scheduled completion date was 19 October 2025 and actual completion took place on 18 October 2025, so there are no circumstances supporting the workers’ subjective expectation. In light of all of the above, it cannot be found that the workers had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts. /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’: Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’: Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’: Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (daily construction workers), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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, “‘Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Restaurant Hygiene and Cooking Violations)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (daily construction workers) on the “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Daily Construction Workers)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (daily construction workers).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae10112 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.10 · Result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: ① The workers in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns workers employed as daily workers at a construction site who, after the expiry of their fixed-term contracts, filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that their employment contracts should have been renewed for as long as the construction work continued. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined not only whether there had been an unfair dismissal, but also, as a core issue, whether these workers had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts. Ultimately, the Commission accepted the company’s arguments and dismissed the workers’ applications.
This decision illustrates how the legal doctrine on “legitimate expectation of renewal for fixed-term and daily workers,” which frequently arises in unfair dismissal disputes, is applied in practice. It also serves as a case that confirms the typical structure of issues in collective redundancy and contract-expiry disputes at construction sites, as handled in practice by the Labor Relations Commission and Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether workers who entered into daily employment contracts for a fixed term at a construction site can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation that their contracts would be renewed for as long as the construction work continued.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the workers had entered into daily employment contracts clearly specifying the term as running until 30 September 2025; that there were no provisions in the employment contracts, work rules, or collective agreement regarding the conditions, procedures, or criteria for contract renewal; and that the workers themselves testified that they had never received any specific explanation or assurance from the company about renewal, but had merely “thought it would continue.”
In light of these circumstances, the Commission evaluated the workers’ asserted expectation that they “would be able to work for as long as the construction continued” as no more than a subjective expectation lacking any objective basis. Furthermore, it found that, under the subcontract agreement between the company and the principal contractor, the scheduled completion date was 19 October 2025 and actual completion took place on 18 October 2025, so there were no circumstances supporting the workers’ claimed expectation of continued employment until 25 November 2025.
Taking all of these factors together, and in light of the Supreme Court’s doctrine on legitimate expectation of renewal (which assesses whether a “legitimate expectation relationship” has been formed by comprehensively considering the contract terms, renewal practices, existence of renewal criteria, continuity of the business, and other factors), the Commission held that it was difficult to recognize any legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contracts on the part of these workers. It therefore concluded that the employment relationship had naturally terminated upon expiry of the contract term, that there had been no dismissal by the employer at all, and that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Workers’ Perspective)
From the workers’ perspective, it is important to clearly understand that vague expectations such as “it seemed like the construction would continue” or “other colleagues worked there for a long time” are not sufficient to establish a legitimate expectation of renewal. Where the contract period is expressly stated in the employment contract and there are no provisions on renewal criteria or procedures, no consistent practice of renewal by the company, and no specific promises or explanations from the employer, the termination will legally be regarded as a natural expiry of the contract term, and an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is unlikely to be upheld.
Accordingly, when being hired as a fixed-term or daily worker, you should carefully check not only the contract period stated in the employment contract, but also how the possibility of renewal, evaluation criteria, and linkage to the construction period are described. You should also bear in mind that, even if a site manager says something like “we usually keep people on if possible,” it will be difficult to obtain legal protection unless such statements are supported by written rules or a repeated practice of renewal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when entering into contracts with daily or fixed-term workers at construction sites, it is important to clearly specify the contract period and end date, and to make a policy decision as to whether to omit any provisions on renewal altogether or to establish renewal criteria linked to evaluations, construction period, etc. In particular, if the construction period specified in the subcontract agreement and the actual completion date are taken into account from the stage of hiring workers and setting contract periods, the employer will later be able to respond with objective evidence to claims such as “I expected to remain employed because the construction was still ongoing.”
In addition, site managers should be trained not to make statements that could be understood as guaranteeing renewal, such as “guaranteed until retirement age” or “you will definitely stay until the end of the project,” during the hiring and management of workers. If necessary, guidance documents or annexes to the employment contract should explicitly state that “the employment relationship will terminate upon expiry of the contract period unless a separate renewal is made.” Such documentation will be key evidence in future proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission to prove that the company did not confer any legitimate expectation of renewal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The workers entered into daily employment contracts with a fixed term running until 30 September 2025; ② the workers argue that they had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts for as long as the construction work at the site continued, but their employment contracts contain no provisions on contract renewal, they are daily workers and thus not subject to the company’s work rules, and even if they were subject to the work rules, those rules contain no provisions on renewal of employment contracts; ③ the workers never received any explanation or assurance regarding renewal of their daily employment contracts, and merely testified that they had inwardly thought the contracts would be renewed; ④ the workers claim that they expected to be able to work until 25 November 2025, but under the subcontract agreement concluded between the company and the principal contractor, the scheduled completion date was 19 October 2025 and actual completion took place on 18 October 2025, so there are no circumstances supporting the workers’ subjective expectation. In light of all of the above, it cannot be found that the workers had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The workers entered into daily employment contracts with a fixed term running until 30 September 2025; ② the workers argue that they had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts for as long as the construction work at the site continued, but their employment contracts contain no provisions on contract renewal, they are daily workers and thus not subject to the company’s work rules, and even if they were subject to the work rules, those rules contain no provisions on renewal of employment contracts; ③ the workers never received any explanation or assurance regarding renewal of their daily employment contracts, and merely testified that they had inwardly thought the contracts would be renewed; ④ the workers claim that they expected to be able to work until 25 November 2025, but under the subcontract agreement concluded between the company and the principal contractor, the scheduled completion date was 19 October 2025 and actual completion took place on 18 October 2025, so there are no circumstances supporting the workers’ subjective expectation. In light of all of the above, it cannot be found that the workers had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts. /
[More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’: Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’: Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’: Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (daily construction workers), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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, “‘Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Restaurant Hygiene and Cooking Violations)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (daily construction workers) on the “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Daily Construction Workers)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
