Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Employee Status (Construction Daily Workers)” (Unfair Dismissal 477)
- Date2026/05/24 04:08
- Read 80
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “employee status (construction daily workers).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae86 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: While the workers merely asserted, without proper explanation or proof, that they had worked as employees on an indefinite-term basis, the statements of payment of labor costs for earth-retaining works and other temporary works, the statements of payment of daily labor costs, the employment insurance reports confirming daily worker records, and the report of loss of health insurance coverage on 1 December 2025 all indicated that the workers were hired on a one-day basis and that the employment relationship ended when the day’s work was completed. Accordingly, they were deemed to be daily workers whose employment relationship terminated at the end of each day’s work.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns workers at a construction site who filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that they were employees on indefinite-term contracts who had been unfairly dismissed. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the form of work based on statements of payment of labor costs and materials related to the four major social insurances, and the key issue became whether these individuals were indefinite-term employees or daily workers. The Commission ultimately found in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether workers who repeatedly worked at a construction site can be recognized as having employee status and a continuous employment relationship sufficient to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal as indefinite-term employees, even in the absence of written employment contracts or any explicit measure converting them to regular (indefinite-term) status.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that the workers merely asserted that they were employees on indefinite-term contracts, but failed to properly submit supporting materials such as employment contracts, evidence of the application of personnel regulations, or personnel practices premised on long-term and continuous employment. In contrast, the statements of payment of labor costs for earth-retaining works and other temporary works and the statements of payment of daily labor costs confirmed that labor was provided and wages were paid on a one-day basis. In addition, the employment insurance records for daily workers and the report of loss of health insurance coverage on 1 December 2025 revealed a structure in which the employment relationship ended upon completion of each job.
Accordingly, the panel determined that the workers were typical daily workers who were hired on a one-day basis for specific construction days and whose employment relationship ended when that day’s work was completed.
The panel held that this termination could not be viewed as the termination of an indefinite-term employment relationship premised on continuous service, and therefore did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Where a worker has repeatedly worked in a daily-worker format for a long period under the same employer, mere assertion will not suffice to have indefinite-term employee status recognized. In practice, it is necessary to sufficiently collect materials that can prove the continuity and exclusivity of labor provision and personnel/payroll practices. When consulting with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, it is important to systematically prepare materials that can demonstrate the relationship of subordination to the employer, such as employment contracts, pay slips, records of attendance and leaving work, and histories of the four major social insurances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, for construction site daily workers, you should consistently manage the form of contracts, reports for the four major social insurances, and statements of payment of labor costs in a manner that reflects the actual mode of operation. If daily workers are in substance used as long-term or regular staff while only their formal status is kept as “daily,” this may later develop into disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, employers should regularly review hiring, placement, and contract renewal practices and, where necessary, reduce HR and labor risks by obtaining expert advice from professionals such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
While the workers merely asserted, without proper explanation or proof, that they had worked as employees on an indefinite-term basis, the statements of payment of labor costs for earth-retaining works and other temporary works, the statements of payment of daily labor costs, the employment insurance reports confirming daily worker records, and the report of loss of health insurance coverage on 1 December 2025 all indicated that the workers were hired on a one-day basis and that the employment relationship ended when the day’s work was completed. Accordingly, they appeared to fall under the category of daily workers.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
While the workers merely asserted, without proper explanation or proof, that they had worked as employees on an indefinite-term basis, the statements of payment of labor costs for earth-retaining works and other temporary works, the statements of payment of daily labor costs, the employment insurance reports confirming daily worker records, and the report of loss of health insurance coverage on 1 December 2025 all indicated that the workers were hired on a one-day basis and that the employment relationship ended when the day’s work was completed. Accordingly, they appeared to fall under the category of daily workers. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Workplace Harassment (Abusive Language in Group Chat)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Employee status (construction daily workers), 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 ‘Workplace Harassment (Abusive Language in Group Chat)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employee status (construction daily workers) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status (Construction Daily Workers).”
※ 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 (construction daily workers).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae86 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: While the workers merely asserted, without proper explanation or proof, that they had worked as employees on an indefinite-term basis, the statements of payment of labor costs for earth-retaining works and other temporary works, the statements of payment of daily labor costs, the employment insurance reports confirming daily worker records, and the report of loss of health insurance coverage on 1 December 2025 all indicated that the workers were hired on a one-day basis and that the employment relationship ended when the day’s work was completed. Accordingly, they were deemed to be daily workers whose employment relationship terminated at the end of each day’s work.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns workers at a construction site who filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that they were employees on indefinite-term contracts who had been unfairly dismissed. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the form of work based on statements of payment of labor costs and materials related to the four major social insurances, and the key issue became whether these individuals were indefinite-term employees or daily workers. The Commission ultimately found in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether workers who repeatedly worked at a construction site can be recognized as having employee status and a continuous employment relationship sufficient to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal as indefinite-term employees, even in the absence of written employment contracts or any explicit measure converting them to regular (indefinite-term) status.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that the workers merely asserted that they were employees on indefinite-term contracts, but failed to properly submit supporting materials such as employment contracts, evidence of the application of personnel regulations, or personnel practices premised on long-term and continuous employment. In contrast, the statements of payment of labor costs for earth-retaining works and other temporary works and the statements of payment of daily labor costs confirmed that labor was provided and wages were paid on a one-day basis. In addition, the employment insurance records for daily workers and the report of loss of health insurance coverage on 1 December 2025 revealed a structure in which the employment relationship ended upon completion of each job.
Accordingly, the panel determined that the workers were typical daily workers who were hired on a one-day basis for specific construction days and whose employment relationship ended when that day’s work was completed.
The panel held that this termination could not be viewed as the termination of an indefinite-term employment relationship premised on continuous service, and therefore did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Where a worker has repeatedly worked in a daily-worker format for a long period under the same employer, mere assertion will not suffice to have indefinite-term employee status recognized. In practice, it is necessary to sufficiently collect materials that can prove the continuity and exclusivity of labor provision and personnel/payroll practices. When consulting with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, it is important to systematically prepare materials that can demonstrate the relationship of subordination to the employer, such as employment contracts, pay slips, records of attendance and leaving work, and histories of the four major social insurances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, for construction site daily workers, you should consistently manage the form of contracts, reports for the four major social insurances, and statements of payment of labor costs in a manner that reflects the actual mode of operation. If daily workers are in substance used as long-term or regular staff while only their formal status is kept as “daily,” this may later develop into disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, employers should regularly review hiring, placement, and contract renewal practices and, where necessary, reduce HR and labor risks by obtaining expert advice from professionals such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
While the workers merely asserted, without proper explanation or proof, that they had worked as employees on an indefinite-term basis, the statements of payment of labor costs for earth-retaining works and other temporary works, the statements of payment of daily labor costs, the employment insurance reports confirming daily worker records, and the report of loss of health insurance coverage on 1 December 2025 all indicated that the workers were hired on a one-day basis and that the employment relationship ended when the day’s work was completed. Accordingly, they appeared to fall under the category of daily workers.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
While the workers merely asserted, without proper explanation or proof, that they had worked as employees on an indefinite-term basis, the statements of payment of labor costs for earth-retaining works and other temporary works, the statements of payment of daily labor costs, the employment insurance reports confirming daily worker records, and the report of loss of health insurance coverage on 1 December 2025 all indicated that the workers were hired on a one-day basis and that the employment relationship ended when the day’s work was completed. Accordingly, they appeared to fall under the category of daily workers. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Workplace Harassment (Abusive Language in Group Chat)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Employee status (construction daily workers), 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 ‘Workplace Harassment (Abusive Language in Group Chat)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employee status (construction daily workers) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status (Construction Daily Workers).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
