Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expectation of Employment Succession (Apartment Security Guard)” (Unfair Dismissal 427)
- Date2026/05/04 20:14
- Read 133
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expectation of employment succession (apartment security guard).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae152 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026.03.31 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether there was an expectation of employment succession
Given that the security service contract between the employer and the apartment stipulated that the employer may, through mutual consultation with the apartment, have security guards continue working or newly hire them, and that all employees hired by the previous service provider, except for the worker in question, were taken over by the new contractor, it was held that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties that employment would be succeeded, and thus an expectation of employment succession was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a situation where, upon a change of the apartment security service provider, employment succession for an existing security guard was refused, raising the issue of whether this constituted unfair dismissal. The worker claimed that he had an expectation of employment succession and that the refusal of succession without just cause amounted to unfair dismissal, and therefore filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a hearing as an unfair dismissal relief case and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer, dismissing the worker’s application for relief.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were whether an existing security guard has an expectation of employment succession when the apartment security service provider changes, and, even if such an expectation is recognized, whether the employer has reasonable grounds to refuse employment succession for a specific worker on the basis of complaints, disputes, and similar reasons.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that an expectation of employment succession should be recognized, on the grounds that the security service contract between the employer and the apartment expressly provided that “through mutual consultation with the apartment, the employer may have security guards continue working or newly hire them,” and that all security guards employed by the previous service provider, except for the worker in question, were taken over by the new contractor. From these circumstances, the panel held that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties that the worker’s employment would be succeeded.
However, the worker had issues related to work attitude, including repeated complaints during his shifts, arguments with the management office, and conflicts with colleagues. The employer, in response to the apartment’s specific request to replace that particular security guard, excluded only this worker from the scope of succession. Taking these circumstances together, the panel held that the employer had reasonable grounds to refuse employment succession for the worker.
Although an expectation of employment succession was recognized in this case, the dismissal was not found to be unfair because there existed reasonable grounds sufficient to override that expectation.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is important to remember that even if the service provider changes, an “expectation of employment succession” may be recognized based on the contents of the contract and established practice. However, even where such an expectation is recognized, it may be difficult to compel the new employer to take over the worker if there are issues with work attitude, such as unauthorized absences, repeated complaints, or serious conflicts with colleagues. Accordingly, maintaining proper work attitude and interpersonal relationships is critically important.
In order to seek relief for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission in similar disputes, the worker should submit evidence proving the practice and promises of employment succession (such as the service contract, notices, and past succession cases), along with specific explanations showing that he or she did not commit serious misconduct or become the subject of repeated complaints.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
When entering into service contracts for security, cleaning, and similar services, employers and apartment residents’ representative councils should clearly stipulate in the contract whether and under what criteria existing workers will be taken over. In addition, if, in practice, most workers are to be succeeded but a particular individual is to be excluded, it is necessary to secure reasonable grounds based on objective materials—such as the circumstances of complaint occurrences, performance evaluations, and details of conflicts with colleagues—rather than relying merely on residents’ preferences or vague dissatisfaction.
Since refusal of employment succession, which has an effect similar to redundancy or outsourcing, is highly likely to lead to unfair dismissal disputes, it is advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to refine the procedures and grounds, and to sufficiently prepare the basis on which legitimacy can be recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there was an expectation of employment succession
Given that the security service contract between the employer and the apartment stipulated that the employer may, through mutual consultation with the apartment, have security guards continue working or newly hire them, and that all employees hired by the previous service provider, except for the worker in question, were taken over by the new contractor, it was held that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties that employment would be succeeded, and thus an expectation of employment succession was recognized.
B. Whether there were reasonable grounds for refusing employment succession
The worker had been the subject of complaints during his shifts, had arguments at the management office, and had conflicts with fellow employees. The employer refused employment succession in response to the apartment’s request to replace the security guard. In light of these circumstances, it was determined that the employer had reasonable grounds to refuse employment succession for the worker.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether there was an expectation of employment succession
Given that the security service contract between the employer and the apartment stipulated that the employer may, through mutual consultation with the apartment, have security guards continue working or newly hire them, and that all employees hired by the previous service provider, except for the worker in question, were taken over by the new contractor, it was held that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties that employment would be succeeded, and thus an expectation of employment succession was recognized.
B. Whether there were reasonable grounds for refusing employment succession
The worker had been the subject of complaints during his shifts, had arguments at the management office, and had conflicts with fellow employees. The employer refused employment succession in response to the apartment’s request to replace the security guard. In light of these circumstances, it was determined that the employer had reasonable grounds to refuse employment succession for the worker. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Denial of Employee Status (Annual Salary Contract·Side Business)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (5-Month Fixed-Term Contract)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of employment succession (apartment security guard), employment succession, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Denial of Employee Status (Annual Salary Contract·Side Business)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of employment succession (apartment security guard) can be viewed in the “Expectation of Employment Succession (Apartment Security Guard) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expectation of employment succession (apartment security guard).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae152 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026.03.31 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether there was an expectation of employment succession
Given that the security service contract between the employer and the apartment stipulated that the employer may, through mutual consultation with the apartment, have security guards continue working or newly hire them, and that all employees hired by the previous service provider, except for the worker in question, were taken over by the new contractor, it was held that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties that employment would be succeeded, and thus an expectation of employment succession was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a situation where, upon a change of the apartment security service provider, employment succession for an existing security guard was refused, raising the issue of whether this constituted unfair dismissal. The worker claimed that he had an expectation of employment succession and that the refusal of succession without just cause amounted to unfair dismissal, and therefore filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a hearing as an unfair dismissal relief case and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer, dismissing the worker’s application for relief.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were whether an existing security guard has an expectation of employment succession when the apartment security service provider changes, and, even if such an expectation is recognized, whether the employer has reasonable grounds to refuse employment succession for a specific worker on the basis of complaints, disputes, and similar reasons.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that an expectation of employment succession should be recognized, on the grounds that the security service contract between the employer and the apartment expressly provided that “through mutual consultation with the apartment, the employer may have security guards continue working or newly hire them,” and that all security guards employed by the previous service provider, except for the worker in question, were taken over by the new contractor. From these circumstances, the panel held that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties that the worker’s employment would be succeeded.
However, the worker had issues related to work attitude, including repeated complaints during his shifts, arguments with the management office, and conflicts with colleagues. The employer, in response to the apartment’s specific request to replace that particular security guard, excluded only this worker from the scope of succession. Taking these circumstances together, the panel held that the employer had reasonable grounds to refuse employment succession for the worker.
Although an expectation of employment succession was recognized in this case, the dismissal was not found to be unfair because there existed reasonable grounds sufficient to override that expectation.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, it is important to remember that even if the service provider changes, an “expectation of employment succession” may be recognized based on the contents of the contract and established practice. However, even where such an expectation is recognized, it may be difficult to compel the new employer to take over the worker if there are issues with work attitude, such as unauthorized absences, repeated complaints, or serious conflicts with colleagues. Accordingly, maintaining proper work attitude and interpersonal relationships is critically important.
In order to seek relief for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission in similar disputes, the worker should submit evidence proving the practice and promises of employment succession (such as the service contract, notices, and past succession cases), along with specific explanations showing that he or she did not commit serious misconduct or become the subject of repeated complaints.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
When entering into service contracts for security, cleaning, and similar services, employers and apartment residents’ representative councils should clearly stipulate in the contract whether and under what criteria existing workers will be taken over. In addition, if, in practice, most workers are to be succeeded but a particular individual is to be excluded, it is necessary to secure reasonable grounds based on objective materials—such as the circumstances of complaint occurrences, performance evaluations, and details of conflicts with colleagues—rather than relying merely on residents’ preferences or vague dissatisfaction.
Since refusal of employment succession, which has an effect similar to redundancy or outsourcing, is highly likely to lead to unfair dismissal disputes, it is advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to refine the procedures and grounds, and to sufficiently prepare the basis on which legitimacy can be recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there was an expectation of employment succession
Given that the security service contract between the employer and the apartment stipulated that the employer may, through mutual consultation with the apartment, have security guards continue working or newly hire them, and that all employees hired by the previous service provider, except for the worker in question, were taken over by the new contractor, it was held that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties that employment would be succeeded, and thus an expectation of employment succession was recognized.
B. Whether there were reasonable grounds for refusing employment succession
The worker had been the subject of complaints during his shifts, had arguments at the management office, and had conflicts with fellow employees. The employer refused employment succession in response to the apartment’s request to replace the security guard. In light of these circumstances, it was determined that the employer had reasonable grounds to refuse employment succession for the worker.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether there was an expectation of employment succession
Given that the security service contract between the employer and the apartment stipulated that the employer may, through mutual consultation with the apartment, have security guards continue working or newly hire them, and that all employees hired by the previous service provider, except for the worker in question, were taken over by the new contractor, it was held that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties that employment would be succeeded, and thus an expectation of employment succession was recognized.
B. Whether there were reasonable grounds for refusing employment succession
The worker had been the subject of complaints during his shifts, had arguments at the management office, and had conflicts with fellow employees. The employer refused employment succession in response to the apartment’s request to replace the security guard. In light of these circumstances, it was determined that the employer had reasonable grounds to refuse employment succession for the worker. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Denial of Employee Status (Annual Salary Contract·Side Business)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (5-Month Fixed-Term Contract)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of employment succession (apartment security guard), employment succession, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Denial of Employee Status (Annual Salary Contract·Side Business)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of employment succession (apartment security guard) can be viewed in the “Expectation of Employment Succession (Apartment Security Guard) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
