Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Whether a Dismissal Existed (Resignation Recommendation by Telephone) – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 441)
- Date2026/05/09 04:08
- Read 113
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of whether a “dismissal existed (resignation recommendation by telephone).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9148 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re-examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.27 · Result: First-instance decision upheld
Key issue summary: ○ ① In this case, between the employer and employee, during the “2025. …”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the employer had unfairly dismissed him/her. At the Central Labor Relations Commission, the dispute centered on whether a dismissal existed in the course of a telephone conversation. The employee regarded the employer’s remarks as a dismissal, while the employer argued that it was a recommendation to resign and that the employee voluntarily resigned. Both the first-instance and re-examination decisions sided with the employer, holding that there was no unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the employer’s remarks to the employee during a telephone conversation constituted a “dismissal” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act (termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent), or whether they should instead be regarded as termination of the employment relationship by the employee’s resignation or by mutual agreement between employer and employee.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case comprehensively considered the following: it was difficult to find that, in the telephone conversation of 7 July 2025, the employer explicitly expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship; the content of the remarks was better understood as a recommendation to resign rather than a unilateral notice of dismissal; the employee did not clearly object to dismissal or clearly assert an intention to continue working during the call; immediately after the call, the employee sent a text message requesting settlement of wages; and thereafter, the employee neither reported to work nor made concrete efforts to do so.
Accordingly, the termination of the employment relationship in this case was deemed not to be a unilateral dismissal by the employer, but rather to be appropriately evaluated as the employee’s resignation or something equivalent thereto.
Since there was no “dismissal” to begin with in this case, the matter did not reach the stage of examining the legitimacy of a dismissal (such as the requirements for redundancy dismissal or grounds for disciplinary dismissal). The application for remedy for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed as groundless.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
To assert unfair dismissal, an employee must first prove that the employer made a unilateral declaration of intent to terminate the employment contract that qualifies as a dismissal. Where the employer’s remarks in oral or electronic communications—such as by telephone, KakaoTalk, or text message—are ambiguous, the employee should immediately clarify whether it is “a dismissal or a recommendation to resign,” and, if he or she wishes to continue working, clearly express and protest that intention.
In addition, if the employee’s actual conduct—such as requesting wage settlement immediately after the call or ceasing to report to work—appears to be “settlement and departure premised on resignation,” this may later operate as an unfavorable circumstance for the employee when disputing the existence of a dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when recommending resignation or discussing mutual termination, it is important to state clearly that it is not a dismissal, and to ensure that the employee’s voluntary intention to resign is preserved in objective form, such as in writing or through a clear recording. If the employee has agreed to resign voluntarily, the employer should specifically organize and record whether a resignation letter was submitted, the circumstances of the resignation, the resignation date, and the criteria for wage settlement. Doing so will make it easier, in a later unfair dismissal dispute, to prove that the matter involved “resignation or mutual termination,” not dismissal.
Furthermore, obtaining a resignation letter that is effectively coerced in order to circumvent dismissal restrictions may cast doubt on the genuineness of the employee’s intention to resign and may later be evaluated by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts as “substantively a dismissal.” Accordingly, when recommending resignation, employers should carefully design procedures and wording so as not to give rise to misunderstandings that pressure or coercion was involved.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
○ ① In the “7 July 2025 telephone conversation” between the parties in this case, it cannot be confirmed that the employer explicitly expressed an “intention to terminate the employment relationship”; ② the employer’s remarks are reasonably understood as a “recommendation to resign”; ③ in response, the employee did not clearly express any objection or opposition; ④ immediately after the call, the employee sent a text message requesting “settlement of wages”; and ⑤ thereafter, the employee neither reported to the workplace nor made efforts to do so. In light of all these circumstances, it appears that no dismissal (termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent) existed in relation to the termination of the employment relationship in this case. ○ Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the legitimacy of any dismissal.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
○ ① In the “7 July 2025 telephone conversation” between the parties in this case, it cannot be confirmed that the employer explicitly expressed an “intention to terminate the employment relationship”; ② the employer’s remarks are reasonably understood as a “recommendation to resign”; ③ in response, the employee did not clearly express any objection or opposition; ④ immediately after the call, the employee sent a text message requesting “settlement of wages”; and ⑤ thereafter, the employee neither reported to the workplace nor made efforts to do so. In light of all these circumstances, it appears that no dismissal (termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent) existed in relation to the termination of the employment relationship in this case. ○ Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the legitimacy of any dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks by Telephone)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Case on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Case on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Existence of dismissal (resignation recommendation by telephone), 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 of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Case on Disciplinary Dismissal (Prostitution · Acceptance of Money and Valuables) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (resignation recommendation by telephone) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Recommendation by Telephone).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of whether a “dismissal existed (resignation recommendation by telephone).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9148 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re-examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.27 · Result: First-instance decision upheld
Key issue summary: ○ ① In this case, between the employer and employee, during the “2025. …”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the employer had unfairly dismissed him/her. At the Central Labor Relations Commission, the dispute centered on whether a dismissal existed in the course of a telephone conversation. The employee regarded the employer’s remarks as a dismissal, while the employer argued that it was a recommendation to resign and that the employee voluntarily resigned. Both the first-instance and re-examination decisions sided with the employer, holding that there was no unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the employer’s remarks to the employee during a telephone conversation constituted a “dismissal” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act (termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent), or whether they should instead be regarded as termination of the employment relationship by the employee’s resignation or by mutual agreement between employer and employee.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case comprehensively considered the following: it was difficult to find that, in the telephone conversation of 7 July 2025, the employer explicitly expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship; the content of the remarks was better understood as a recommendation to resign rather than a unilateral notice of dismissal; the employee did not clearly object to dismissal or clearly assert an intention to continue working during the call; immediately after the call, the employee sent a text message requesting settlement of wages; and thereafter, the employee neither reported to work nor made concrete efforts to do so.
Accordingly, the termination of the employment relationship in this case was deemed not to be a unilateral dismissal by the employer, but rather to be appropriately evaluated as the employee’s resignation or something equivalent thereto.
Since there was no “dismissal” to begin with in this case, the matter did not reach the stage of examining the legitimacy of a dismissal (such as the requirements for redundancy dismissal or grounds for disciplinary dismissal). The application for remedy for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed as groundless.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
To assert unfair dismissal, an employee must first prove that the employer made a unilateral declaration of intent to terminate the employment contract that qualifies as a dismissal. Where the employer’s remarks in oral or electronic communications—such as by telephone, KakaoTalk, or text message—are ambiguous, the employee should immediately clarify whether it is “a dismissal or a recommendation to resign,” and, if he or she wishes to continue working, clearly express and protest that intention.
In addition, if the employee’s actual conduct—such as requesting wage settlement immediately after the call or ceasing to report to work—appears to be “settlement and departure premised on resignation,” this may later operate as an unfavorable circumstance for the employee when disputing the existence of a dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when recommending resignation or discussing mutual termination, it is important to state clearly that it is not a dismissal, and to ensure that the employee’s voluntary intention to resign is preserved in objective form, such as in writing or through a clear recording. If the employee has agreed to resign voluntarily, the employer should specifically organize and record whether a resignation letter was submitted, the circumstances of the resignation, the resignation date, and the criteria for wage settlement. Doing so will make it easier, in a later unfair dismissal dispute, to prove that the matter involved “resignation or mutual termination,” not dismissal.
Furthermore, obtaining a resignation letter that is effectively coerced in order to circumvent dismissal restrictions may cast doubt on the genuineness of the employee’s intention to resign and may later be evaluated by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts as “substantively a dismissal.” Accordingly, when recommending resignation, employers should carefully design procedures and wording so as not to give rise to misunderstandings that pressure or coercion was involved.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
○ ① In the “7 July 2025 telephone conversation” between the parties in this case, it cannot be confirmed that the employer explicitly expressed an “intention to terminate the employment relationship”; ② the employer’s remarks are reasonably understood as a “recommendation to resign”; ③ in response, the employee did not clearly express any objection or opposition; ④ immediately after the call, the employee sent a text message requesting “settlement of wages”; and ⑤ thereafter, the employee neither reported to the workplace nor made efforts to do so. In light of all these circumstances, it appears that no dismissal (termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent) existed in relation to the termination of the employment relationship in this case. ○ Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the legitimacy of any dismissal.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
○ ① In the “7 July 2025 telephone conversation” between the parties in this case, it cannot be confirmed that the employer explicitly expressed an “intention to terminate the employment relationship”; ② the employer’s remarks are reasonably understood as a “recommendation to resign”; ③ in response, the employee did not clearly express any objection or opposition; ④ immediately after the call, the employee sent a text message requesting “settlement of wages”; and ⑤ thereafter, the employee neither reported to the workplace nor made efforts to do so. In light of all these circumstances, it appears that no dismissal (termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent) existed in relation to the termination of the employment relationship in this case. ○ Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the legitimacy of any dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks by Telephone)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Case on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Case on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Existence of dismissal (resignation recommendation by telephone), 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 of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Case on Disciplinary Dismissal (Prostitution · Acceptance of Money and Valuables) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (resignation recommendation by telephone) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Recommendation by Telephone).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
