Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on the “Existence of Dismissal (Notification by Text via Colleague)” (Unfair Dismissal 448)
- Date2026/05/12 04:13
- Read 113
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “existence of dismissal (notification by text via colleague).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 10365 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.25 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The employee claimed that he had been notified of his dismissal by text message conveyed through a colleague, but (i) the employer denied that any dismissal had occurred and no objective evidence was found to support the employee’s allegation, and (ii) the employee stated at the hearing, “After receiving the dismissal text message, I never asked the employer about it.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee alleged unfair dismissal on the ground that he had been notified of dismissal by a text message conveyed through a colleague. However, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission denied the very existence of a dismissal and dismissed the employee’s application for a remedy for unfair dismissal. In labor commission proceedings dealing with unfair dismissal, one of the issues frequently encountered by Labor Law Firm Law&—and central to this case—is whether the separation was a “dismissal” or a voluntary resignation/job change or termination by mutual agreement.
The employee argued that the employer had stated it was no longer feasible to maintain the installation team and had notified him of dismissal through a colleague, and that as a result he had no choice but to move to another workplace. The employer, on the other hand, argued that it had merely explained the company’s circumstances and advised the employee to look for another job, and that the team leader had received an offer from another workplace and moved there together with his team members, including the employee, and that there had been no dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether “based solely on a text message conveyed through a colleague and the subsequent circumstances of the employee’s move to another workplace, it can be deemed that there was a unilateral dismissal by the employer.”
Further, in an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal, the case raised the criteria for determining the existence of dismissal—namely, whether the alleged dismissal actually occurred, or whether the case instead constitutes a resignation/job change or termination by mutual agreement with the employee’s consent.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found as follows: the employer completely denied that any dismissal had taken place, and no objective evidence was found to support the employee’s allegation (notification of dismissal by text through a colleague); although the employee claimed to have received a dismissal text message, there was no indication that he directly confirmed with the employer whether he had been dismissed, raised any objection, or expressed an intention to continue working; the employer explained that, due to company circumstances, it had advised the team leader to look for another job because it would be difficult to maintain the installation team, and that the team leader had in fact received an offer from another workplace and moved there together with the team members, including the employee. This explanation was consistent with the team leader’s written confirmation and testimony at the hearing.
In light of the above, the panel determined that the employment relationship between the parties had not been terminated by a unilateral dismissal by the employer, but rather that the employee had accepted the team leader’s proposal and moved to another workplace.
The commission held that, based solely on the employee’s assertions, the existence of the alleged dismissal could not be recognized, and therefore ruled that “no dismissal exists.”
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to preserve evidence that can substantiate the specific circumstances of any dismissal notification, such as text messages, KakaoTalk messages, call recordings, and notes of meetings. In particular, if you understood that you had been dismissed based only on what you heard through a colleague, you should immediately confirm with the employer in writing or by text that you “understand this as a dismissal notification,” and clearly state your objection to the dismissal and your intention to continue working.
Furthermore, even if you are told by the company to “look for another place” or that it “recommends you change jobs,” the legal assessment may differ depending on whether you voluntarily chose to move with your consent, or whether you effectively had no real choice due to dismissal pressure. You should therefore record the circumstances in detail and, if necessary, at an early stage seek advice from a specialist such as Labor Law Firm Law& to determine an appropriate response.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even if no actual dismissal has taken place, repeated statements such as “look for another job” or “it will be difficult for you to continue working here” carry the risk that the employee may perceive them as a dismissal. Where recommendations or explanations are given in meetings with employees, it is necessary to clearly document, in meeting notes or written confirmations, that the intent was a “recommendation/proposal,” not a dismissal, and that the employee agreed and chose to resign or move to another workplace.
In addition, where an actual dismissal is carried out, Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act requires that the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal be notified in writing, and conveying this only by text or orally is likely to sow the seeds of a dispute. Even if, as in this decision, the conclusion is that “no dismissal exists,” the grounds for termination of the employment relationship may again become an issue in future disputes (e.g. over wages, severance pay, employment insurance). Employers should therefore manage the circumstances of any termination of employment with consistent and objective documentation.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee claimed that he had been notified of dismissal by text message conveyed through a colleague. However: (i) the employer denied that any dismissal had taken place, and no objective evidence was found to support the employee’s allegation; (ii) at the hearing, the employee stated to the effect that “after receiving the dismissal text message, I never asked the employer about it” and that “I agreed to go to Tae○○○tem as proposed by Manager Kim ○○.” Thus, the employee not only failed to confirm with the employer whether he had been dismissed, but also does not appear to have raised any objection or expressed an intention to continue working; and (iii) regarding the circumstances of the termination of the employment relationship, the employer argued that it had advised Manager Kim ○○ to look for another job because, due to company circumstances, it would be difficult to maintain the installation team, and that Manager Kim ○○ had received an offer from another workplace and moved there together with the installation team members, including the employee. This account is consistent with the written confirmation submitted by Manager Kim ○○ and his testimony at the hearing. In light of all of the above, it is difficult to view the employment relationship between the parties as having been terminated by a unilateral dismissal by the employer. Accordingly, it is determined that no dismissal exists.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The employee claimed that he had been notified of dismissal by text message conveyed through a colleague. However: (i) the employer denied that any dismissal had taken place, and no objective evidence was found to support the employee’s allegation; (ii) at the hearing, the employee stated to the effect that “after receiving the dismissal text message, I never asked the employer about it” and that “I agreed to go to Tae○○○tem as proposed by Manager Kim ○○.” Thus, the employee not only failed to confirm with the employer whether he had been dismissed, but also does not appear to have raised any objection or expressed an intention to continue working; and (iii) regarding the circumstances of the termination of the employment relationship, the employer argued that it had advised Manager Kim ○○ to look for another job because, due to company circumstances, it would be difficult to maintain the installation team, and that Manager Kim ○○ had received an offer from another workplace and moved there together with the installation team members, including the employee. This account is consistent with the written confirmation submitted by Manager Kim ○○ and his testimony at the hearing. In light of all of the above, it is difficult to view the employment relationship between the parties as having been terminated by a unilateral dismissal by the employer. Accordingly, it is determined that no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Traffic Accident Involving Pedestrian)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (notification by text via colleague), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Traffic Accident Involving Pedestrian)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (notification by text via colleague) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Notification by Text via Colleague).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “existence of dismissal (notification by text via colleague).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 10365 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.25 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The employee claimed that he had been notified of his dismissal by text message conveyed through a colleague, but (i) the employer denied that any dismissal had occurred and no objective evidence was found to support the employee’s allegation, and (ii) the employee stated at the hearing, “After receiving the dismissal text message, I never asked the employer about it.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee alleged unfair dismissal on the ground that he had been notified of dismissal by a text message conveyed through a colleague. However, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission denied the very existence of a dismissal and dismissed the employee’s application for a remedy for unfair dismissal. In labor commission proceedings dealing with unfair dismissal, one of the issues frequently encountered by Labor Law Firm Law&—and central to this case—is whether the separation was a “dismissal” or a voluntary resignation/job change or termination by mutual agreement.
The employee argued that the employer had stated it was no longer feasible to maintain the installation team and had notified him of dismissal through a colleague, and that as a result he had no choice but to move to another workplace. The employer, on the other hand, argued that it had merely explained the company’s circumstances and advised the employee to look for another job, and that the team leader had received an offer from another workplace and moved there together with his team members, including the employee, and that there had been no dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether “based solely on a text message conveyed through a colleague and the subsequent circumstances of the employee’s move to another workplace, it can be deemed that there was a unilateral dismissal by the employer.”
Further, in an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal, the case raised the criteria for determining the existence of dismissal—namely, whether the alleged dismissal actually occurred, or whether the case instead constitutes a resignation/job change or termination by mutual agreement with the employee’s consent.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found as follows: the employer completely denied that any dismissal had taken place, and no objective evidence was found to support the employee’s allegation (notification of dismissal by text through a colleague); although the employee claimed to have received a dismissal text message, there was no indication that he directly confirmed with the employer whether he had been dismissed, raised any objection, or expressed an intention to continue working; the employer explained that, due to company circumstances, it had advised the team leader to look for another job because it would be difficult to maintain the installation team, and that the team leader had in fact received an offer from another workplace and moved there together with the team members, including the employee. This explanation was consistent with the team leader’s written confirmation and testimony at the hearing.
In light of the above, the panel determined that the employment relationship between the parties had not been terminated by a unilateral dismissal by the employer, but rather that the employee had accepted the team leader’s proposal and moved to another workplace.
The commission held that, based solely on the employee’s assertions, the existence of the alleged dismissal could not be recognized, and therefore ruled that “no dismissal exists.”
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to preserve evidence that can substantiate the specific circumstances of any dismissal notification, such as text messages, KakaoTalk messages, call recordings, and notes of meetings. In particular, if you understood that you had been dismissed based only on what you heard through a colleague, you should immediately confirm with the employer in writing or by text that you “understand this as a dismissal notification,” and clearly state your objection to the dismissal and your intention to continue working.
Furthermore, even if you are told by the company to “look for another place” or that it “recommends you change jobs,” the legal assessment may differ depending on whether you voluntarily chose to move with your consent, or whether you effectively had no real choice due to dismissal pressure. You should therefore record the circumstances in detail and, if necessary, at an early stage seek advice from a specialist such as Labor Law Firm Law& to determine an appropriate response.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even if no actual dismissal has taken place, repeated statements such as “look for another job” or “it will be difficult for you to continue working here” carry the risk that the employee may perceive them as a dismissal. Where recommendations or explanations are given in meetings with employees, it is necessary to clearly document, in meeting notes or written confirmations, that the intent was a “recommendation/proposal,” not a dismissal, and that the employee agreed and chose to resign or move to another workplace.
In addition, where an actual dismissal is carried out, Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act requires that the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal be notified in writing, and conveying this only by text or orally is likely to sow the seeds of a dispute. Even if, as in this decision, the conclusion is that “no dismissal exists,” the grounds for termination of the employment relationship may again become an issue in future disputes (e.g. over wages, severance pay, employment insurance). Employers should therefore manage the circumstances of any termination of employment with consistent and objective documentation.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee claimed that he had been notified of dismissal by text message conveyed through a colleague. However: (i) the employer denied that any dismissal had taken place, and no objective evidence was found to support the employee’s allegation; (ii) at the hearing, the employee stated to the effect that “after receiving the dismissal text message, I never asked the employer about it” and that “I agreed to go to Tae○○○tem as proposed by Manager Kim ○○.” Thus, the employee not only failed to confirm with the employer whether he had been dismissed, but also does not appear to have raised any objection or expressed an intention to continue working; and (iii) regarding the circumstances of the termination of the employment relationship, the employer argued that it had advised Manager Kim ○○ to look for another job because, due to company circumstances, it would be difficult to maintain the installation team, and that Manager Kim ○○ had received an offer from another workplace and moved there together with the installation team members, including the employee. This account is consistent with the written confirmation submitted by Manager Kim ○○ and his testimony at the hearing. In light of all of the above, it is difficult to view the employment relationship between the parties as having been terminated by a unilateral dismissal by the employer. Accordingly, it is determined that no dismissal exists.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The employee claimed that he had been notified of dismissal by text message conveyed through a colleague. However: (i) the employer denied that any dismissal had taken place, and no objective evidence was found to support the employee’s allegation; (ii) at the hearing, the employee stated to the effect that “after receiving the dismissal text message, I never asked the employer about it” and that “I agreed to go to Tae○○○tem as proposed by Manager Kim ○○.” Thus, the employee not only failed to confirm with the employer whether he had been dismissed, but also does not appear to have raised any objection or expressed an intention to continue working; and (iii) regarding the circumstances of the termination of the employment relationship, the employer argued that it had advised Manager Kim ○○ to look for another job because, due to company circumstances, it would be difficult to maintain the installation team, and that Manager Kim ○○ had received an offer from another workplace and moved there together with the installation team members, including the employee. This account is consistent with the written confirmation submitted by Manager Kim ○○ and his testimony at the hearing. In light of all of the above, it is difficult to view the employment relationship between the parties as having been terminated by a unilateral dismissal by the employer. Accordingly, it is determined that no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Traffic Accident Involving Pedestrian)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (notification by text via colleague), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Traffic Accident Involving Pedestrian)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (notification by text via colleague) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Notification by Text via Colleague).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
