Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Employee Status (Direction by Director of Photography)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 469)
- Date2026/05/21 04:13
- Read 96
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “employee status (direction by director of photography).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9691 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.20 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act: (i) the applicant worked according to a fixed schedule set out in the shooting schedule; (ii) the applicant could not freely choose the shooting locations; (iii) the applicant performed work under the direction and supervision of the director of photography; (iv) the applicant was paid a fixed amount per session; and (v) the applicant did not bear equipment or personnel costs and could not have a third party substitute for the work. In light of all these factors, the applicant was found to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
B. Whether a dismissal existed: – Shooting …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a member of a filming crew working at broadcasting/video shooting sites who claimed to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that the employer had terminated the employment relationship by way of dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized the applicant’s employee status, but focused its examination on whether there had in fact been an expression of intent to dismiss by the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “(i) whether a filming crew member who worked according to a fixed schedule and at fixed locations set out in a shooting schedule, under the direction and supervision of a director of photography, qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act; and (ii) whether a situation in which the worker simply no longer works at the shooting site, without any expression of intent to dismiss by the employer, can be regarded as an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the applicant was an employee under the Labor Standards Act, given that: the applicant’s schedule was fixed according to the shooting schedule; the applicant could not freely choose the shooting locations; the applicant performed work under the direction and supervision of the director of photography; the applicant was paid a fixed amount per session; and the applicant did not bear equipment or personnel costs and could not have a third party substitute for the work.
However, the panel also found that, even though the director of photography exercised considerable direction and supervision on site, there was no evidence that the director of photography had authority, on behalf of the employer (respondent), to hire or dismiss employees. It further appeared that the employer only became aware, after the filing of the application for remedy, that the applicant had stopped working at the shooting site, and that the applicant had never asserted to the employer that the dismissal was unfair or raised any objection. Taking all of this into account, the panel found it difficult to recognize any expression of intent to dismiss on the part of the employer.
Accordingly, as there was ultimately no expression of intent to dismiss by the employer in this case, the panel held that no unfair dismissal had occurred.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if you have signed a contract in the form of a freelancer as filming/broadcasting staff, you should bear in mind that you may still be recognized as an employee under the Labor Standards Act if, in reality, your schedule and workplace are designated, you are subject to direction and supervision, and you are paid a fixed amount.
However, for a remedy for unfair dismissal, it is not enough that employee status is recognized. It is also crucial to secure evidence that the employer made an express or implied expression of intent to dismiss (such as text messages, KakaoTalk or other messenger records, recorded calls, instructions excluding you from reporting to work, etc.).
In addition, if you find yourself in a situation where you are no longer being assigned work on site, you should immediately send a written inquiry or message to the employer or the HR officer to clearly ask whether this constitutes a “dismissal,” and preserve the response as evidence. This will be a very important point in any subsequent Labor Relations Commission proceedings.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
As Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in practice, disputes often arise where broad authority for on-site direction and supervision is delegated to on-site supervisors such as directors of photography or team leaders, but whether these individuals hold personnel authority (hiring/dismissal authority) is not clearly defined. Companies should clearly specify, through contracts, internal regulations, and chains of command, “who has the authority to hire and dismiss” and “under what circumstances work exclusion or notice of contract termination may be given,” and should train on-site supervisors accordingly so that their words and conduct are not misunderstood as arbitrary dismissal notices.
Furthermore, even if a freelancer, service, or subcontracting format is used, there is a high likelihood that employee status will be recognized if, in substance, the company is paying fixed compensation under a structure of fixed schedules, locations, and direction/supervision. In such cases, it is necessary either to convert the relationship into an employment contract structure from the outset, or to conduct prior restructuring so that the method of performing work and the method of payment of consideration align with a genuine subcontract/mandate structure.
In this type of case, employee status and the existence of a dismissal are separate issues. Both parties should therefore prepare evidence separately on “whether the person is an employee” and on “the existence and manner of any expression of intent to dismiss,” and should formulate their strategy in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act
In light of the following factors, the applicant was found to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act: (i) the applicant worked according to a fixed schedule set out in the shooting schedule; (ii) the applicant could not freely choose the shooting locations; (iii) the applicant performed work under the direction and supervision of the director of photography; (iv) the applicant was paid a fixed amount per session; and (v) the applicant did not bear equipment or personnel costs and could not have a third party substitute for the work.
B. Whether a dismissal existed
– Although the director of photography exercised considerable direction and supervision over the applicant at the shooting site on behalf of the respondent, there is no basis to find that the director of photography had authority, on behalf of the respondent, to hire or dismiss the respondent’s employees.
– It appears that the respondent was entirely unaware that the applicant had ceased performing work at the shooting site and only came to know of this after the applicant filed the application for remedy.
– The applicant likewise never asserted to the respondent that the dismissal was unfair or expressed any dissatisfaction.
As it cannot be recognized that the employer in this case made any expression of intent to dismiss, the dismissal in this case does not exist.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act
In light of the following factors, the applicant was found to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act: (i) the applicant worked according to a fixed schedule set out in the shooting schedule; (ii) the applicant could not freely choose the shooting locations; (iii) the applicant performed work under the direction and supervision of the director of photography; (iv) the applicant was paid a fixed amount per session; and (v) the applicant did not bear equipment or personnel costs and could not have a third party substitute for the work.
B. Whether a dismissal existed
– Although the director of photography exercised considerable direction and supervision over the applicant at the shooting site on behalf of the respondent, there is no basis to find that the director of photography had authority, on behalf of the respondent, to hire or dismiss the respondent’s employees.
– It appears that the respondent was entirely unaware that the applicant had ceased performing work at the shooting site and only came to know of this after the applicant filed the application for remedy.
– The applicant likewise never asserted to the respondent that the dismissal was unfair or expressed any dissatisfaction.
As it cannot be recognized that the employer in this case made any expression of intent to dismiss, the dismissal in this case does not exist. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Expiry of Fixed-Term Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanctions (Receipt of Congratulatory/Condolence Money)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status (direction by director of photography), 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, “‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanctions (Receipt of Congratulatory/Condolence Money)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to employee status (direction by director of photography) at “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status (Direction by Director of Photography).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “employee status (direction by director of photography).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9691 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.20 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act: (i) the applicant worked according to a fixed schedule set out in the shooting schedule; (ii) the applicant could not freely choose the shooting locations; (iii) the applicant performed work under the direction and supervision of the director of photography; (iv) the applicant was paid a fixed amount per session; and (v) the applicant did not bear equipment or personnel costs and could not have a third party substitute for the work. In light of all these factors, the applicant was found to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
B. Whether a dismissal existed: – Shooting …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a member of a filming crew working at broadcasting/video shooting sites who claimed to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that the employer had terminated the employment relationship by way of dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized the applicant’s employee status, but focused its examination on whether there had in fact been an expression of intent to dismiss by the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “(i) whether a filming crew member who worked according to a fixed schedule and at fixed locations set out in a shooting schedule, under the direction and supervision of a director of photography, qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act; and (ii) whether a situation in which the worker simply no longer works at the shooting site, without any expression of intent to dismiss by the employer, can be regarded as an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the applicant was an employee under the Labor Standards Act, given that: the applicant’s schedule was fixed according to the shooting schedule; the applicant could not freely choose the shooting locations; the applicant performed work under the direction and supervision of the director of photography; the applicant was paid a fixed amount per session; and the applicant did not bear equipment or personnel costs and could not have a third party substitute for the work.
However, the panel also found that, even though the director of photography exercised considerable direction and supervision on site, there was no evidence that the director of photography had authority, on behalf of the employer (respondent), to hire or dismiss employees. It further appeared that the employer only became aware, after the filing of the application for remedy, that the applicant had stopped working at the shooting site, and that the applicant had never asserted to the employer that the dismissal was unfair or raised any objection. Taking all of this into account, the panel found it difficult to recognize any expression of intent to dismiss on the part of the employer.
Accordingly, as there was ultimately no expression of intent to dismiss by the employer in this case, the panel held that no unfair dismissal had occurred.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if you have signed a contract in the form of a freelancer as filming/broadcasting staff, you should bear in mind that you may still be recognized as an employee under the Labor Standards Act if, in reality, your schedule and workplace are designated, you are subject to direction and supervision, and you are paid a fixed amount.
However, for a remedy for unfair dismissal, it is not enough that employee status is recognized. It is also crucial to secure evidence that the employer made an express or implied expression of intent to dismiss (such as text messages, KakaoTalk or other messenger records, recorded calls, instructions excluding you from reporting to work, etc.).
In addition, if you find yourself in a situation where you are no longer being assigned work on site, you should immediately send a written inquiry or message to the employer or the HR officer to clearly ask whether this constitutes a “dismissal,” and preserve the response as evidence. This will be a very important point in any subsequent Labor Relations Commission proceedings.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
As Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in practice, disputes often arise where broad authority for on-site direction and supervision is delegated to on-site supervisors such as directors of photography or team leaders, but whether these individuals hold personnel authority (hiring/dismissal authority) is not clearly defined. Companies should clearly specify, through contracts, internal regulations, and chains of command, “who has the authority to hire and dismiss” and “under what circumstances work exclusion or notice of contract termination may be given,” and should train on-site supervisors accordingly so that their words and conduct are not misunderstood as arbitrary dismissal notices.
Furthermore, even if a freelancer, service, or subcontracting format is used, there is a high likelihood that employee status will be recognized if, in substance, the company is paying fixed compensation under a structure of fixed schedules, locations, and direction/supervision. In such cases, it is necessary either to convert the relationship into an employment contract structure from the outset, or to conduct prior restructuring so that the method of performing work and the method of payment of consideration align with a genuine subcontract/mandate structure.
In this type of case, employee status and the existence of a dismissal are separate issues. Both parties should therefore prepare evidence separately on “whether the person is an employee” and on “the existence and manner of any expression of intent to dismiss,” and should formulate their strategy in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act
In light of the following factors, the applicant was found to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act: (i) the applicant worked according to a fixed schedule set out in the shooting schedule; (ii) the applicant could not freely choose the shooting locations; (iii) the applicant performed work under the direction and supervision of the director of photography; (iv) the applicant was paid a fixed amount per session; and (v) the applicant did not bear equipment or personnel costs and could not have a third party substitute for the work.
B. Whether a dismissal existed
– Although the director of photography exercised considerable direction and supervision over the applicant at the shooting site on behalf of the respondent, there is no basis to find that the director of photography had authority, on behalf of the respondent, to hire or dismiss the respondent’s employees.
– It appears that the respondent was entirely unaware that the applicant had ceased performing work at the shooting site and only came to know of this after the applicant filed the application for remedy.
– The applicant likewise never asserted to the respondent that the dismissal was unfair or expressed any dissatisfaction.
As it cannot be recognized that the employer in this case made any expression of intent to dismiss, the dismissal in this case does not exist.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act
In light of the following factors, the applicant was found to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act: (i) the applicant worked according to a fixed schedule set out in the shooting schedule; (ii) the applicant could not freely choose the shooting locations; (iii) the applicant performed work under the direction and supervision of the director of photography; (iv) the applicant was paid a fixed amount per session; and (v) the applicant did not bear equipment or personnel costs and could not have a third party substitute for the work.
B. Whether a dismissal existed
– Although the director of photography exercised considerable direction and supervision over the applicant at the shooting site on behalf of the respondent, there is no basis to find that the director of photography had authority, on behalf of the respondent, to hire or dismiss the respondent’s employees.
– It appears that the respondent was entirely unaware that the applicant had ceased performing work at the shooting site and only came to know of this after the applicant filed the application for remedy.
– The applicant likewise never asserted to the respondent that the dismissal was unfair or expressed any dissatisfaction.
As it cannot be recognized that the employer in this case made any expression of intent to dismiss, the dismissal in this case does not exist. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Expiry of Fixed-Term Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanctions (Receipt of Congratulatory/Condolence Money)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status (direction by director of photography), 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, “‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanctions (Receipt of Congratulatory/Condolence Money)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to employee status (direction by director of photography) at “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status (Direction by Director of Photography).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
