Corporate trends / Performance record
Whether Dismissal Exists (Statement by Hospital Administrative Director) – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 432)
- Date2026/05/06 04:09
- Read 124
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “whether dismissal exists (statement by hospital administrative director).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae280 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
March 30, 2026 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: In light of the circumstances set out below, it is difficult to recognize that, on January 13, 2026, the employer in this case expressed a definitive intention to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship with the employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working at a hospital treated the employer’s oral remarks and related circumstances as a dismissal and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The Commission considered the statements of the employer and the administrative director, the subsequent notice of a disciplinary committee, the sending of a dismissal‑notice letter, the guidance on reinstatement to the original position, and the employee’s failure to return to work, and concluded that no dismissal itself existed in this case.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where there were strong reprimands by the administrative director and remarks to the effect of “if you are going to work like that, then quit,” as well as the sending of a dismissal‑notice letter, it can be viewed that there existed a “dismissal” in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that there was no fact established that the employer directly expressed to the employee a definitive intention to dismiss, i.e., to have the employee leave the hospital. It further found that the administrative director’s remarks were merely a reprimand pointing out the employee’s work attitude and working hours and, in saying “if you are going to work like that, then quit,” were only demanding that the employee work properly.
Although it is difficult to deny that the employer was aware of problems in the conflict between the employee and the administrative director, it was also difficult to find that the employer instructed the administrative director to dismiss the employee or subsequently ratified the administrative director’s remarks as a dismissal.
Taking into account that the employee was notified of the convening of a disciplinary committee but the committee could not actually proceed because the employee failed to appear, that a dismissal‑notice letter was later sent, and that the employer then guided the employee to be reinstated to the original position but the employee did not return, the Commission determined that it was difficult to view the employer as having expressed a definitive intention to terminate the employment contract.
Ultimately, the Commission held that, in this case, no “dismissal itself exists,” and on that basis dismissed the application for remedy based on the claim of unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
To assert unfair dismissal, an employee must first be able to prove that the employer clearly and definitively expressed an intention to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship. Mere scolding, emotionally charged remarks such as “if you are going to do that, then quit,” or simple guidance on disciplinary procedures may not immediately be recognized as a dismissal. It is therefore important to secure as much objective evidence as possible, such as the actual dismissal notice, the contents of any dismissal‑notice letter, and whether a loss‑of‑coverage report was filed for the four major social insurances.
In addition, if the employer, even belatedly, clearly guides the employee to be reinstated to the original position, ignoring such guidance and failing to report to work may instead develop into an issue of voluntary resignation or unauthorized absence. Accordingly, the employee should state his or her intention regarding reinstatement in writing and, if necessary, promptly consult with experts such as the Labor Relations Commission or Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, if there is in fact no intention to dismiss, it is advisable to restrain managers or administrative directors from using expressions to employees such as “then quit,” and to clearly explain that the remarks are intended as criticism or warnings. When considering dismissal, the employer should, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide written notice of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, and should document the convening of a disciplinary committee, notice of appearance, and the outcome of the resolution. Doing so will make it easier to substantiate the existence and justifiability of the dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Furthermore, if, after sending a dismissal‑notice letter, the employer does not actually execute the dismissal due to changed circumstances or instead guides the employee to be reinstated, the employer should clearly document in writing the content and timing of the withdrawal of the intention to dismiss and the guidance on reinstatement. This will help reduce future disputes over unfair dismissal and wage claims. Because the outcome of such matters can turn on a single expression or a single line in a document, employers are advised to seek advice from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& when revising HR and labor regulations and when responding to individual cases.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the circumstances set out below, it is difficult to recognize that, on January 13, 2026, the employer in this case expressed to the employee a definitive intention to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship.
- The employer did not say anything to the effect that the employee should leave the hospital, and the hospital’s administrative director did not tell the employee to leave the hospital per se, but, while pointing out the employee’s working hours, said that if the employee was going to work in that manner, then the employee should leave the hospital, which was merely a demand that the employee work properly.
- Although it is difficult to deny that the employer was aware of problems in the conflict between the employee and the administrative director, it is difficult to conclude that the employer instructed the administrative director to dismiss the employee or subsequently ratified the administrative director’s remarks.
- In addition, the employee was notified of the convening of a disciplinary committee, but the meeting was canceled due to the employee’s failure to appear; thereafter, a dismissal‑notice letter was sent; and the employee was guided to be reinstated to the original position but did not return. Considering all of these facts together, the Commission found that no dismissal existed in this case.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the circumstances set out below, it is difficult to recognize that, on January 13, 2026, the employer in this case expressed to the employee a definitive intention to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship.
- The employer did not say anything to the effect that the employee should leave the hospital, and the hospital’s administrative director did not tell the employee to leave the hospital per se, but, while pointing out the employee’s working hours, said that if the employee was going to work in that manner, then the employee should leave the hospital, which was merely a demand that the employee work properly.
- Although it is difficult to deny that the employer was aware of problems in the conflict between the employee and the administrative director, it is difficult to conclude that the employer instructed the administrative director to dismiss the employee or subsequently ratified the administrative director’s remarks.
- In addition, the employee was notified of the convening of a disciplinary committee, but the meeting was canceled due to the employee’s failure to appear; thereafter, a dismissal‑notice letter was sent; and the employee was guided to be reinstated to the original position but did not return. Considering all of these facts together, the Commission found that no dismissal existed in this case. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Not a Redundancy Dismissal)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, whether dismissal exists (statement by hospital administrative director), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Not a Redundancy Dismissal)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to whether dismissal exists (statement by hospital administrative director) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Whether Dismissal Exists (Statement by Hospital Administrative Director).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “whether dismissal exists (statement by hospital administrative director).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae280 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
March 30, 2026 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: In light of the circumstances set out below, it is difficult to recognize that, on January 13, 2026, the employer in this case expressed a definitive intention to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship with the employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working at a hospital treated the employer’s oral remarks and related circumstances as a dismissal and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The Commission considered the statements of the employer and the administrative director, the subsequent notice of a disciplinary committee, the sending of a dismissal‑notice letter, the guidance on reinstatement to the original position, and the employee’s failure to return to work, and concluded that no dismissal itself existed in this case.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where there were strong reprimands by the administrative director and remarks to the effect of “if you are going to work like that, then quit,” as well as the sending of a dismissal‑notice letter, it can be viewed that there existed a “dismissal” in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that there was no fact established that the employer directly expressed to the employee a definitive intention to dismiss, i.e., to have the employee leave the hospital. It further found that the administrative director’s remarks were merely a reprimand pointing out the employee’s work attitude and working hours and, in saying “if you are going to work like that, then quit,” were only demanding that the employee work properly.
Although it is difficult to deny that the employer was aware of problems in the conflict between the employee and the administrative director, it was also difficult to find that the employer instructed the administrative director to dismiss the employee or subsequently ratified the administrative director’s remarks as a dismissal.
Taking into account that the employee was notified of the convening of a disciplinary committee but the committee could not actually proceed because the employee failed to appear, that a dismissal‑notice letter was later sent, and that the employer then guided the employee to be reinstated to the original position but the employee did not return, the Commission determined that it was difficult to view the employer as having expressed a definitive intention to terminate the employment contract.
Ultimately, the Commission held that, in this case, no “dismissal itself exists,” and on that basis dismissed the application for remedy based on the claim of unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
To assert unfair dismissal, an employee must first be able to prove that the employer clearly and definitively expressed an intention to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship. Mere scolding, emotionally charged remarks such as “if you are going to do that, then quit,” or simple guidance on disciplinary procedures may not immediately be recognized as a dismissal. It is therefore important to secure as much objective evidence as possible, such as the actual dismissal notice, the contents of any dismissal‑notice letter, and whether a loss‑of‑coverage report was filed for the four major social insurances.
In addition, if the employer, even belatedly, clearly guides the employee to be reinstated to the original position, ignoring such guidance and failing to report to work may instead develop into an issue of voluntary resignation or unauthorized absence. Accordingly, the employee should state his or her intention regarding reinstatement in writing and, if necessary, promptly consult with experts such as the Labor Relations Commission or Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, if there is in fact no intention to dismiss, it is advisable to restrain managers or administrative directors from using expressions to employees such as “then quit,” and to clearly explain that the remarks are intended as criticism or warnings. When considering dismissal, the employer should, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide written notice of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, and should document the convening of a disciplinary committee, notice of appearance, and the outcome of the resolution. Doing so will make it easier to substantiate the existence and justifiability of the dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Furthermore, if, after sending a dismissal‑notice letter, the employer does not actually execute the dismissal due to changed circumstances or instead guides the employee to be reinstated, the employer should clearly document in writing the content and timing of the withdrawal of the intention to dismiss and the guidance on reinstatement. This will help reduce future disputes over unfair dismissal and wage claims. Because the outcome of such matters can turn on a single expression or a single line in a document, employers are advised to seek advice from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& when revising HR and labor regulations and when responding to individual cases.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the circumstances set out below, it is difficult to recognize that, on January 13, 2026, the employer in this case expressed to the employee a definitive intention to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship.
- The employer did not say anything to the effect that the employee should leave the hospital, and the hospital’s administrative director did not tell the employee to leave the hospital per se, but, while pointing out the employee’s working hours, said that if the employee was going to work in that manner, then the employee should leave the hospital, which was merely a demand that the employee work properly.
- Although it is difficult to deny that the employer was aware of problems in the conflict between the employee and the administrative director, it is difficult to conclude that the employer instructed the administrative director to dismiss the employee or subsequently ratified the administrative director’s remarks.
- In addition, the employee was notified of the convening of a disciplinary committee, but the meeting was canceled due to the employee’s failure to appear; thereafter, a dismissal‑notice letter was sent; and the employee was guided to be reinstated to the original position but did not return. Considering all of these facts together, the Commission found that no dismissal existed in this case.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the circumstances set out below, it is difficult to recognize that, on January 13, 2026, the employer in this case expressed to the employee a definitive intention to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship.
- The employer did not say anything to the effect that the employee should leave the hospital, and the hospital’s administrative director did not tell the employee to leave the hospital per se, but, while pointing out the employee’s working hours, said that if the employee was going to work in that manner, then the employee should leave the hospital, which was merely a demand that the employee work properly.
- Although it is difficult to deny that the employer was aware of problems in the conflict between the employee and the administrative director, it is difficult to conclude that the employer instructed the administrative director to dismiss the employee or subsequently ratified the administrative director’s remarks.
- In addition, the employee was notified of the convening of a disciplinary committee, but the meeting was canceled due to the employee’s failure to appear; thereafter, a dismissal‑notice letter was sent; and the employee was guided to be reinstated to the original position but did not return. Considering all of these facts together, the Commission found that no dismissal existed in this case. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Not a Redundancy Dismissal)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, whether dismissal exists (statement by hospital administrative director), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Not a Redundancy Dismissal)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to whether dismissal exists (statement by hospital administrative director) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Whether Dismissal Exists (Statement by Hospital Administrative Director).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
