Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Existence of a Hiring Commitment (Change of Start Date)” (Unfair Dismissal 451)
- Date2026/05/13 04:13
- Read 105
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of a hiring commitment (change of start date).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae232 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.25 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: During the recruitment process, the employee changed their available start date, after which the hiring process no longer proceeded. It was therefore held that no employment relationship (hiring commitment) had been formed between the parties.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal was filed with the Labor Relations Commission on the basis that the cancellation of a hiring commitment constituted unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on the fact that, during the ongoing recruitment process, the employee unilaterally changed their available start date, and that the hiring process did not proceed any further thereafter.
Taking these circumstances as a whole, the Commission found that no employment relationship—i.e., no hiring commitment—had been formed between the parties, and consequently concluded that there was no dismissal or cancellation of a hiring commitment by the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee changes their available start date while the recruitment process is still underway, a hiring commitment has already been formed such that the cancellation thereof constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the recruitment of the employee was still in progress, that the employer’s premise for proceeding with the recruitment was undermined when the employee changed their available start date, and that the company did not thereafter issue any further notice confirming the hire or take any steps to conclude an employment contract.
In light of these factors, the panel determined that it was difficult to find that the parties had reached the stage of a “hiring commitment” in which an employment contract had been definitively formed, either expressly or impliedly. Accordingly, because no employment relationship had been formed, there was no act of dismissal or cancellation of a hiring commitment as alleged by the employee, and the application for remedy for unfair dismissal could not be upheld.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
In the recruitment process, employees should secure materials that can support the existence of a hiring commitment, such as “final acceptance notices,” “confirmation of employment,” and “confirmation of key terms such as start date and salary.” In addition, expressions of intent made before joining—such as changing the available start date or requesting changes to conditions—can have a significant impact on the recruitment process. Employees should therefore communicate carefully and in a manner that leaves a record, such as in writing or by email.
Because the burden of proof regarding the formation of a hiring commitment is generally placed on the employee by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, employees should systematically retain materials that show circumstances indicating a confirmed hire, such as text messages, messenger logs, emails, job postings, and acceptance notices.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
Employers should clearly distinguish and communicate the difference between the document/interview pass stage and the “final hiring commitment” stage. Once a hiring commitment has been finalized, any cancellation thereof must comply with procedures equivalent to dismissal under the Labor Standards Act (such as the existence of grounds for dismissal and the obligation to provide written notice). Conversely, if the process has not yet reached the stage of a hiring commitment, employers should clearly specify the wording of acceptance notices, the process of coordinating the start date, and whether acceptance is conditional, in order to prevent unnecessary disputes over unfair dismissal.
In particular, where an employee changes their available start date or newly proposes conditions, and the company decides not to proceed with the recruitment as a result, the company should leave at least a brief written record stating that “the recruitment is terminated” and the reasons therefor, so that the factual circumstances can be clearly proven in any future dispute before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
During the recruitment process, the employee changed their available start date, after which the hiring process no longer proceeded. It was therefore determined that no employment relationship (hiring commitment) had been formed between the parties. Accordingly, because no employment relationship was formed, there was no dismissal (cancellation of a hiring commitment).
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
During the recruitment process, the employee changed their available start date, after which the hiring process no longer proceeded. It was therefore determined that no employment relationship (hiring commitment) had been formed between the parties. Accordingly, because no employment relationship was formed, there was no dismissal (cancellation of a hiring commitment).
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Employee Status (Part-Time Advisor)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of hiring commitment (change of start date), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Employee Status (Part-Time Advisor)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of a hiring commitment (change of start date) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of a Hiring Commitment (Change of Start Date).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of a hiring commitment (change of start date).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae232 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.25 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: During the recruitment process, the employee changed their available start date, after which the hiring process no longer proceeded. It was therefore held that no employment relationship (hiring commitment) had been formed between the parties.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal was filed with the Labor Relations Commission on the basis that the cancellation of a hiring commitment constituted unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on the fact that, during the ongoing recruitment process, the employee unilaterally changed their available start date, and that the hiring process did not proceed any further thereafter.
Taking these circumstances as a whole, the Commission found that no employment relationship—i.e., no hiring commitment—had been formed between the parties, and consequently concluded that there was no dismissal or cancellation of a hiring commitment by the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee changes their available start date while the recruitment process is still underway, a hiring commitment has already been formed such that the cancellation thereof constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the recruitment of the employee was still in progress, that the employer’s premise for proceeding with the recruitment was undermined when the employee changed their available start date, and that the company did not thereafter issue any further notice confirming the hire or take any steps to conclude an employment contract.
In light of these factors, the panel determined that it was difficult to find that the parties had reached the stage of a “hiring commitment” in which an employment contract had been definitively formed, either expressly or impliedly. Accordingly, because no employment relationship had been formed, there was no act of dismissal or cancellation of a hiring commitment as alleged by the employee, and the application for remedy for unfair dismissal could not be upheld.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
In the recruitment process, employees should secure materials that can support the existence of a hiring commitment, such as “final acceptance notices,” “confirmation of employment,” and “confirmation of key terms such as start date and salary.” In addition, expressions of intent made before joining—such as changing the available start date or requesting changes to conditions—can have a significant impact on the recruitment process. Employees should therefore communicate carefully and in a manner that leaves a record, such as in writing or by email.
Because the burden of proof regarding the formation of a hiring commitment is generally placed on the employee by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, employees should systematically retain materials that show circumstances indicating a confirmed hire, such as text messages, messenger logs, emails, job postings, and acceptance notices.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
Employers should clearly distinguish and communicate the difference between the document/interview pass stage and the “final hiring commitment” stage. Once a hiring commitment has been finalized, any cancellation thereof must comply with procedures equivalent to dismissal under the Labor Standards Act (such as the existence of grounds for dismissal and the obligation to provide written notice). Conversely, if the process has not yet reached the stage of a hiring commitment, employers should clearly specify the wording of acceptance notices, the process of coordinating the start date, and whether acceptance is conditional, in order to prevent unnecessary disputes over unfair dismissal.
In particular, where an employee changes their available start date or newly proposes conditions, and the company decides not to proceed with the recruitment as a result, the company should leave at least a brief written record stating that “the recruitment is terminated” and the reasons therefor, so that the factual circumstances can be clearly proven in any future dispute before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
During the recruitment process, the employee changed their available start date, after which the hiring process no longer proceeded. It was therefore determined that no employment relationship (hiring commitment) had been formed between the parties. Accordingly, because no employment relationship was formed, there was no dismissal (cancellation of a hiring commitment).
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
During the recruitment process, the employee changed their available start date, after which the hiring process no longer proceeded. It was therefore determined that no employment relationship (hiring commitment) had been formed between the parties. Accordingly, because no employment relationship was formed, there was no dismissal (cancellation of a hiring commitment).
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Employee Status (Part-Time Advisor)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of hiring commitment (change of start date), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Employee Status (Part-Time Advisor)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of a hiring commitment (change of start date) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of a Hiring Commitment (Change of Start Date).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
